4 ms·

Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork

by lawl 6y ago

Fully agree. Some distros are packaging my software with bad patches constantly and then ignore requests to rename the package to make it clear that it's a fork. Unfortunately for small projects registering a trademark is just not feasible. I have considered going from actual open source to source available though.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Issues like these are really what make me feel so bummed about open source. I can see it's enormous impact in the 90s quelling a lot of corporate greed, but now it's to the point that nobody respects the work put in anymore.
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
GPLv3 allows adding a clause that would force them to change the name if they make changes. If they do it anyway they're in violation of the license, no trademark required.
- lawl 6y ago
  Do you happen to have a link with more info on how such a clause would look like? That sounds really interesting.
  - dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    I do not, but I bet you could find a bigger project that has a such a clause and ask them if you could copy it.
    - lawl 6y ago
      Thanks, I did find an example here: > The Coppermine Dev Team requires as additional term of the license Coppermine comes with that modified versions of Coppermine conveyed to others should be marked in a reasonable way. Modified versions mustn't be conveyed to others under the same name as the original Coppermine release. Package name, source code and the output generated by the modified version should make it obvious for potential users that the modified version and the original Coppermine version that the modified version is based upon differ. https://coppermine-gallery.net/docs/curr/en/copyrights.htm#copyright_additional_marking https://coppermine-gallery.net/docs/curr/en/copyrights.htm#c... and a PDF talking a bit more about section 7 here: http://www.mmmtechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PLI-Open-Source-2014-Extra-provisions-of-FSF-licenses.pdf http://www.mmmtechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PLI-Ope... So I think i understand this a bit better now. Maybe this helps someone else too. (raw GPL legalese is difficult for me to fully parse not being a native speaker)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mlavin 6y ago
  For those asking, it's in section seven, additional clauses: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: [...] c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or...
nightcracker 6y ago
This is (part of) why I use the zlib license.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  zlib doesn't require renaming the software, just not claiming you wrote the original version and if you distribute a modified version of the source code (but nothing about the binaries!) you must make it clear the code was modified.

by lawl 6y ago

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Issues like these are really what make me feel so bummed about open source. I can see it's enormous impact in the 90s quelling a lot of corporate greed, but now it's to the point that nobody respects the work put in anymore.

dec0dedab0de 6y ago

GPLv3 allows adding a clause that would force them to change the name if they make changes. If they do it anyway they're in violation of the license, no trademark required.

lawl 6y ago
Do you happen to have a link with more info on how such a clause would look like? That sounds really interesting.
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  I do not, but I bet you could find a bigger project that has a such a clause and ask them if you could copy it.
  - lawl 6y ago
    Thanks, I did find an example here: > The Coppermine Dev Team requires as additional term of the license Coppermine comes with that modified versions of Coppermine conveyed to others should be marked in a reasonable way. Modified versions mustn't be conveyed to others under the same name as the original Coppermine release. Package name, source code and the output generated by the modified version should make it obvious for potential users that the modified version and the original Coppermine version that the modified version is based upon differ. https://coppermine-gallery.net/docs/curr/en/copyrights.htm#copyright_additional_marking https://coppermine-gallery.net/docs/curr/en/copyrights.htm#c... and a PDF talking a bit more about section 7 here: http://www.mmmtechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PLI-Open-Source-2014-Extra-provisions-of-FSF-licenses.pdf http://www.mmmtechlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PLI-Ope... So I think i understand this a bit better now. Maybe this helps someone else too. (raw GPL legalese is difficult for me to fully parse not being a native speaker)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mlavin 6y ago
For those asking, it's in section seven, additional clauses: Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: [...] c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or...

nightcracker 6y ago

This is (part of) why I use the zlib license.

badsectoracula 6y ago
zlib doesn't require renaming the software, just not claiming you wrote the original version and if you distribute a modified version of the source code (but nothing about the binaries!) you must make it clear the code was modified.