5 ms·

> The name of the project is simply “Haiku”. Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts, the registration of haiku.org has not been possible; hence the reason for

> The name of the project is simply “Haiku”. Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts, the registration of haiku.org has not been possible; hence the reason for haiku-os.org. And guess what, the domain haiku.org is collecting dust. What a surprise with how civil the domain market is. https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#why-isnt-it-called-haikuos https://www.haiku-os.org/about/faq/#why-isnt-it-called-haiku... https://haiku.org/ https://haiku.org/

halpert 5y ago
What is your opinion on property rights?
- krono 5y ago
  IANAL: As I understand it, dotcom domain names are leased rather than owned. Either way, if squatting of high value domains were illegal, you could make the case for some form of (civil) asset forfeiture, or eminent domain if the taker is a popular open source project. Not sure how I'd feel about this, though.
  - analognoise 5y ago
    There's no way business interests would ever allow asset forfeiture to help open source projects. It's a laughable idea.
    - Fnoord 5y ago
      Trademark perhaps?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - krono 5y ago
      The concept of "Eminent Domain" entails the state taking private property specifically for public use always. Which is why I mentioned it in relation to open source, separately from forfeiture :)
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Open source projects with no backing run by a single overworked and unpaid developer, yeah, but the legal arm of billion dollar open-source company Redhat definitely going to try some shenanigans if you somehow managed to gain ownership of redhat.com
  - halpert 5y ago
    Rights of parties in a lease are also governed by property rights.
rvz 5y ago
Maybe if they had tons of cash somehow, they would have bought it already, just like how Signal was able to buy signal.org (even with or without donations) regardless. Assuming everyone here from many companies from large corporations / startups to small open-source companies know how expensive some domain names are.
KZerda 5y ago
Domains are used for more than just webhosting. The owner could have email accounts, etc, that use the haiku.org domain that they don't want to switch to another less recognizeable name.
- thewakalix 5y ago
  Seems likely. Starting Nmap 7.80 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2022-01-01 14:17 CST Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 14:17 Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 14:17, 0.00s elapsed Initiating Connect Scan at 14:17 Scanning haiku.org (35.213.168.88) [11 ports] Completed Connect Scan at 14:17, 5.00s elapsed (11 total ports) Nmap scan report for haiku.org (35.213.168.88) Host is up. rDNS record for 35.213.168.88: 88.168.213.35.bc.googleusercontent.com PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp filtered ftp 25/tcp filtered smtp 53/tcp filtered domain 80/tcp filtered http 110/tcp filtered pop3 143/tcp filtered imap 443/tcp filtered https 587/tcp filtered submission 993/tcp filtered imaps 995/tcp filtered pop3s 3306/tcp filtered mysql Read data files from: /usr/bin/../share/nmap Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 5.06 seconds
  - watermelon0 5y ago
    Those ports are commonly exposed when using a web hosting provider. Visiting above IP serves with TLS cert for Siteground, which is a popular provider.

halpert 5y ago

What is your opinion on property rights?

krono 5y ago
IANAL: As I understand it, dotcom domain names are leased rather than owned. Either way, if squatting of high value domains were illegal, you could make the case for some form of (civil) asset forfeiture, or eminent domain if the taker is a popular open source project. Not sure how I'd feel about this, though.
- analognoise 5y ago
  There's no way business interests would ever allow asset forfeiture to help open source projects. It's a laughable idea.
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    Trademark perhaps?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - krono 5y ago
    The concept of "Eminent Domain" entails the state taking private property specifically for public use always. Which is why I mentioned it in relation to open source, separately from forfeiture :)
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Open source projects with no backing run by a single overworked and unpaid developer, yeah, but the legal arm of billion dollar open-source company Redhat definitely going to try some shenanigans if you somehow managed to gain ownership of redhat.com
- halpert 5y ago
  Rights of parties in a lease are also governed by property rights.

rvz 5y ago

Maybe if they had tons of cash somehow, they would have bought it already, just like how Signal was able to buy signal.org (even with or without donations) regardless. Assuming everyone here from many companies from large corporations / startups to small open-source companies know how expensive some domain names are.

KZerda 5y ago

Domains are used for more than just webhosting. The owner could have email accounts, etc, that use the haiku.org domain that they don't want to switch to another less recognizeable name.

thewakalix 5y ago
Seems likely. Starting Nmap 7.80 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2022-01-01 14:17 CST Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 14:17 Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 14:17, 0.00s elapsed Initiating Connect Scan at 14:17 Scanning haiku.org (35.213.168.88) [11 ports] Completed Connect Scan at 14:17, 5.00s elapsed (11 total ports) Nmap scan report for haiku.org (35.213.168.88) Host is up. rDNS record for 35.213.168.88: 88.168.213.35.bc.googleusercontent.com PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp filtered ftp 25/tcp filtered smtp 53/tcp filtered domain 80/tcp filtered http 110/tcp filtered pop3 143/tcp filtered imap 443/tcp filtered https 587/tcp filtered submission 993/tcp filtered imaps 995/tcp filtered pop3s 3306/tcp filtered mysql Read data files from: /usr/bin/../share/nmap Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 5.06 seconds
- watermelon0 5y ago
  Those ports are commonly exposed when using a web hosting provider. Visiting above IP serves with TLS cert for Siteground, which is a popular provider.