4 ms·

This is why it is important to trademark names in your FOSS projects

Kelteseth 5y ago
For example, when someone would bundle OBS with a virus and create a fake website with OBS logo and everything, one could sue them for c̶o̶p̶y̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ trademark infringement. They would still be allowed to do that with FOSS software, but would need to create their own reputation. Edit: Not copyright -> trademark
- yccs27 5y ago
  I think you mean suing for trademark infringement (because FOSS has permissive copyright), or am I just confused?
  - Kelteseth 5y ago
    Yes thanks, I fixed it :)
  - jobigoud 5y ago
    FOSS doesn't really have permissive copyright though. You can't claim to be the author of a FOSS work that is not your own, even if it uses a permissive license. The license and the copyright are somewhat orthogonal.
oefrha 5y ago
Very few non-corporate FOSS projects would have the funds to file a trademark, especially an international one considering one can be infringed from anywhere around the world. And time spent on filing would be time not advancing the actual project, unless a lawyer is hired, which makes it even more expensive. Even fewer would have the resources to actually pursue legal action if the trademark is infringed upon. This is probably not a realistic suggestion for all but a few hundred projects.
- 0xy 5y ago
  It costs less than $2,500 to file trademarks in the US, EU and UK which is plenty of coverage. OBS has received hundreds of thousands in funding, from YouTube, Twitch and Facebook as well as smaller patrons. Maybe $5,000 if you're talking about high-touch legal help or the trademarks are dicey.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    OBS is the #10 most popular project on Open Collective[1] (plus other donations), so yeah, it is one of the top-earning FOSS projects that can afford it. [1] https://opencollective.com/discover https://opencollective.com/discover
    - erk__ 5y ago
      Including $50,000 from the owners of Streamlabs, Logitech
      - Warchamp7 5y ago
        For what it's worth, Logitech made that contribution well before they bought Streamlabs
        erk__ 5y ago
        Interesting it was transferred in May 2019 and they bought Streamlabs in September 2019. I had not seen that.
        dpatterbee 5y ago
        Perhaps they were confused about the association between projects as well.
        skeeter2020 5y ago
        Maybe they too were confused and thought they were cutting a cheque to a subsidary, not a different OS project? ;)
tinus_hn 5y ago
It’s not that easy, it only takes a few overzealous lawyers to end up with the drama we had with Firefox and Iceweazel. The point of open source is that you can modify it. But can you modify it and still call it the same name? If so, how much can you modify it?
- account42 5y ago
  Plenty of open source license recognize this, e.g. from the zlib license: > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    True! But what does ‘altered’ mean? And what does ‘not be misrepresented’ mean? If I patch the Linux kernel and compile it, can I call it the Linux kernel? If Streamlabs patches OBS, can they call it Streamlabs OBS? There really isn’t a straightforward answer.
panic 5y ago
I would rather put the blame on Streamlabs for using the name without permission than on OBS for not having registered a trademark.
- dathinab 5y ago
  Yes, I mean even without Trademark this is fraud as they deceive the buyer of their product about what their product is.
wongarsu 5y ago
OBS is probably well-known enough to have decent trademark rights just based on marketplace awareness [1]. You don't technically need a registered trademark if everyone recognizes your name (though it does help) 1: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/united-states-strong-rights-without-registration https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/united-states-strong-ri...

For example, when someone would bundle OBS with a virus and create a fake website with OBS logo and everything, one could sue them for c̶o̶p̶y̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ trademark infringement. They would still be allowed to do that with FOSS software, but would need to create their own reputation. Edit: Not copyright -> trademark

yccs27 5y ago
I think you mean suing for trademark infringement (because FOSS has permissive copyright), or am I just confused?
- Kelteseth 5y ago
  Yes thanks, I fixed it :)
- jobigoud 5y ago
  FOSS doesn't really have permissive copyright though. You can't claim to be the author of a FOSS work that is not your own, even if it uses a permissive license. The license and the copyright are somewhat orthogonal.

oefrha 5y ago

Very few non-corporate FOSS projects would have the funds to file a trademark, especially an international one considering one can be infringed from anywhere around the world. And time spent on filing would be time not advancing the actual project, unless a lawyer is hired, which makes it even more expensive. Even fewer would have the resources to actually pursue legal action if the trademark is infringed upon. This is probably not a realistic suggestion for all but a few hundred projects.

0xy 5y ago
It costs less than $2,500 to file trademarks in the US, EU and UK which is plenty of coverage. OBS has received hundreds of thousands in funding, from YouTube, Twitch and Facebook as well as smaller patrons. Maybe $5,000 if you're talking about high-touch legal help or the trademarks are dicey.
- oefrha 5y ago
  OBS is the #10 most popular project on Open Collective[1] (plus other donations), so yeah, it is one of the top-earning FOSS projects that can afford it. [1] https://opencollective.com/discover https://opencollective.com/discover
  - erk__ 5y ago
    Including $50,000 from the owners of Streamlabs, Logitech
    - Warchamp7 5y ago
      For what it's worth, Logitech made that contribution well before they bought Streamlabs
      - erk__ 5y ago
        Interesting it was transferred in May 2019 and they bought Streamlabs in September 2019. I had not seen that.
        dpatterbee 5y ago
        Perhaps they were confused about the association between projects as well.
      - skeeter2020 5y ago
        Maybe they too were confused and thought they were cutting a cheque to a subsidary, not a different OS project? ;)

tinus_hn 5y ago

It’s not that easy, it only takes a few overzealous lawyers to end up with the drama we had with Firefox and Iceweazel. The point of open source is that you can modify it. But can you modify it and still call it the same name? If so, how much can you modify it?

account42 5y ago
Plenty of open source license recognize this, e.g. from the zlib license: > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  True! But what does ‘altered’ mean? And what does ‘not be misrepresented’ mean? If I patch the Linux kernel and compile it, can I call it the Linux kernel? If Streamlabs patches OBS, can they call it Streamlabs OBS? There really isn’t a straightforward answer.

panic 5y ago

I would rather put the blame on Streamlabs for using the name without permission than on OBS for not having registered a trademark.

dathinab 5y ago
Yes, I mean even without Trademark this is fraud as they deceive the buyer of their product about what their product is.

wongarsu 5y ago

OBS is probably well-known enough to have decent trademark rights just based on marketplace awareness [1]. You don't technically need a registered trademark if everyone recognizes your name (though it does help) 1: https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/united-states-strong-rights-without-registration https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/united-states-strong-ri...