9 ms·

Decision: Red Hat, Inc. vs. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA

122 points by jaboutboul 5y ago

zenincognito 5y ago
>>The domain name is not used in bad faith, given that the web site directs people back to the trademark owner's site, doesn't ask for money, doesn't run banner advertising, doesn't ask for personal registration. It has been demonstrated that the trademark owner is suppressing the blogs of some volunteers with authorship rights and Respondent’s site exists to give those voices an equal status. The founding documents published by the trademark owner (Exhibit 104) encourage us to give voice to all sides. Fail to understand fedora's motives here other than censorship
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Fedora doesn't like Pocock because - I think many people would agree - he's an asshole. However, as Thomas More puts it in the play about his life and betrayal, "there's no law against that".
  - pipapocock 5y ago
  - Handytinge 5y ago
    For what it's worth, I've been at a number of conferences with him in the past and whilst I don't know him intimately, he's always seemed a nice and good natured person yo me.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  You have to enforce your trademarks otherwise they might be declared invalid. Regardless of the final decision, what RedHat did seems pretty normal to me.
  - atdrummond 5y ago
    This notion that surefire mark enforcement can only be achieved through blanket legal action against all potential abusers of the mark is parroted on HN repeatedly; however, the real world situation is a bit more complex. A firm will not lose their trademarks if they don't aggressively sue each and every person/business who might potentially be infringing upon the firm's marks. In fact, for firms like Red Hat who are actively selling a product, (and therefore utilizing the mark in commerce and in a way that makes that mark very well known to potential customers) said ongoing business operations typically ensure that courts will regard one's mark as defended and active, especially if one ensures that the firm does go after the most very egregious violations. TL;DR: Firms do not need to obsessively litigate against every single person using their mark.
sofixa 5y ago
If anyone wants a TLDR: > DECISION Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding RH are markedly less nice than before IBM took over, which is a pity.
- supernovae 5y ago
  No they’re not. IBM has left Red Hat alone.
  - worthless-trash 5y ago
    Can confirm. Dont see any IBM at all in any level.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    So it's just a coincidence that since the acquisition RH have done things like drastically changing CentOS just after 8 came out ( the right time for a strategy shift was before that) and harassing community members ( the present case)?
    - nix23 5y ago
      You have to believe him...plain simple ;)
    - smcl 5y ago
      From the looks of things, Daniel Pocock appears to be less of a community member, and more of a troll
    - supernovae 5y ago
      CentOS changed for the better, it’s now upstream rhel rather than a clone of rhel. The messaging was lost… Red Hat does the upstream paradigm for everything else so it just kind of makes sense once you look into it.
jffry 5y ago
If this seems too long to read, it's about a domain name registration dispute between RedHat and a volunteer who registered wemakefedora.org (RedHat was seeking to gain control over the domain). The arbiter not only found against RedHat but also made a declaration that the dispute was brought in bad faith. The condensed excerpt is: "Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <wemakefedora.org> domain name both because Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark." and from the conclusion, "In light of these circumstances the Panel finds that Complainant brought this proceeding despite having clear knowledge of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the proceeding was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder."
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  So, it's a good outcome.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Possibly? The domain owner does appear to have a history of bad behavior in a wide range of communities, including harassment. The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible. However, purposely annoying a large corporation does not mean their site doesn't also serve an actual purpose, or that it constitutes trademark infringement. I don't think I see much potential for actual confusion or financial loss, so it's hard to see a strong reason to revoke the domain.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kayodelycaon 5y ago
      Bringing a lawsuit against someone when the only grounds you have is you don’t like what they are doing and you know that is the definition of “bad faith”. The defendant may be an asshole, but they have every legal right to be one. RedHat is so clearly in the wrong, it’s disgusting.
jaboutboul 5y ago
There’s a lot more to it than just this decision. Google the complainants name.
- forty 5y ago
  Some hint in the comments here https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/ https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/
- tzs 5y ago
  > Google the complainants name The complainant is Red Hat. I don't see anything interesting when I Google them. Googling the respondent, Daniel Pocock, is a lot more interesting.
rwmj 5y ago
Comments on the LWN article are interesting: https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/ https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/
- kashyapc 5y ago
  Yeah, this particular comment[1] is quite damning—the person got booted by FOSDEM, FSF Europe, Debian[2], Alpine Linux and more. I wonder if the court considered all this past evidence. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/887955/ https://lwn.net/Articles/887955/ [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953378;msg=12 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953378;msg...
  - Karellen 5y ago
    > I wonder if the court considered all this past evidence. Sorry, the guy very much appears to be an asshole - but how does any of that count as "evidence" in the matter of whether or not his domain infringes on Red Hat's trademark?
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      - notriddle 5y ago
        Letting Pocock keep the domain is not a fact. It is a choice. The choice is based on law, and the rendering of the judgement was based on facts, but it is ultimately turning out this way because some people once upon a time decided that domain names should: * be first-come first serve * be rented for an ongoing, nominal subscription * to the maximum extent allowed by law Giving up any one of these properties, and the Internet would be a totally different place. And none of these are fundamental human rights, or necessary for free speech. They’re just designed to work this way because someone thought it was the best way to avoid various stupid, useless outcomes, like domain names being permanently lost because the owner dies, or some teenagers squatting all the domain names because they think it’s funny, or having an important organization get hijacked because someone manages to fill out a form before the group that really can lay a legitimate claim to that name does it. None of these are facts. They’re values. You cannot factually prove these things. The only thing you might be able to prove is that, out of all the things we might want from a namespace system, you have to make trade-offs.
MadsRC 5y ago
The respondent is quite the character… He’s been expelled from the Debian project/community (source: https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117 https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117) and he’s in pretty bad standing with Free Software Foundation Europe.
- worik 5y ago
  Even if they are a reprobate they deserve fair treatment.
  - gwd 5y ago
    Right, but it does call into question whether those "posts which have been deleted from FedoraPlanet" are genuine or are defamatory nonsense. It also calls into question whether he is really intending to represent the Fedora developer community (as implied by the choice of domain name), or whether he's actually intending to harass and spread falsehood. For instance, would he allow a post signed by prominent members of the Fedora community, describing his harassment and defamation in the Debian and Fedora channels, to be posted there? If not, then he's not acting in good faith.
- unmole 5y ago
  What was the actual infraction?
  - hoseja 5y ago
- rurban 5y ago
  yes, he dared to critize them on obvious shit shows. both organizations need to be critized on their actions.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
Mr. Pocock is well known in the Debian community. https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117 https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117
nix23 5y ago
Oh look RedHat got that IBM spirit finally ;)
gnufx 5y ago
This bit of [1], referred to in [2], seems relevant: "their site owners, moderators, administrators, and users are required to comply with the Fedora Code of Conduct. Community sites and accounts which are unable to meet this standard of conduct will be required to cease use of the Fedora trademarks," I wasn't previously aware of it, but [3] may also be relevant. (I know no more than appeared on the devel list, other than history elsewhere.) They may have cocked up the case, but a finding of bad faith against Red Hat seems unlikely to be fair, given the above. 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd=Legal/TrademarkGuidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd... 2. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/22OTDONAMUECMP4OIJK64QEAISJBKNHK/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe... 3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pocock https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pocock
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  > Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark. It is bad faith because Respondent was not using the trademark to pretend to be Red Hat. Tarnishing a trademark would require misleading users to think that you are representing the company. If I create a website called microsoftsucks.com and detail reasons why I think Microsoft sucks, that is fair use. If I pretend to represent Microsoft on that site, then that is tarnishing Microsoft's trademark, or if I use the domain to sells shirts then that may not be considered fair use.
  - supernovae 5y ago
    the domain name itself is in bad faith.. it’s more like registering wemakemicrosoftwindows.com
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Agreed, but "bad faith" is only one of the 3 requirements that need to be proved in a domain case like this.
pmontra 5y ago
> FINDINGS > Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has brought the Complaint primarily to harass the domain-name holder.
userbinator 5y ago
Respondent is using the FEDORA mark in the domain name to identify Complainant for the purpose of operating a website that contains some criticism of Complainant. Such use is generally described as "fair use" of a trademark. This is a good precedent, regardless of what you think of the respondent.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Yes, there's a difference between "I don't like this person and what they are doing" compared to "they shouldn't be allowed to do it"
snvzz 5y ago
Respondent's public reaction on the decision[0]. 0. https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/ https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-vol...
ggm 5y ago
UDRP is not meant to say "you're the asshat, so I'm giving it to the one I like" RedHat have good reasons to want the other chap pushed off the cliff, but thats not what UDRP is for. The asshat has a basis to want their platform, they used it to do what they want, and they have a basis to believe they applied for it, legitemately under terms of use of the name, which met the rules If you want to pull toys from an asshat, find the right rule in the rulebook to do it. This wasn't the right rule.
slater 5y ago
edit: nm
thematrixturtle 5y ago
TL;DR: FINDINGS Complainant [Red Hat] has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has brought the Complaint primarily to harass the domain-name holder [Daniel, who owns wemakefedora.org]. ... Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wemakefedora.org> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
poppafuze 5y ago
Arbitration is why we can't have nice things.
pengaru 5y ago
RedHat's parent IBM, has a rather interesting history when it comes to litigation assholery AIUI. The late Chuck Peddle described some of it in [0] IIRC. Pocock has a reputation for being an antagonistic asshole, but if there's even a shred of IBM representation on RedHat's side I'm inclined to chuckle in a pot-meet-kettle fashion at this situation. [0] https://theamphour.com/241-an-interview-with-chuck-peddle-charismatic-chipmaking-coryphaeus/ https://theamphour.com/241-an-interview-with-chuck-peddle-ch...
levi_n 5y ago
Incase anyone else was curious why this went to arbitration [0]: "Disputes relating top-level domain name names may be settled outside of court under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. (UDRP) as adopted by ICANN. Arbitrator in such cases will be appointed by one of the ICANN approved dispute resolution providers. Red Hat approached the US-based National Arbitration Forum on January 17, 2022. NAF released a document stating that Red Hat’s sole demand was for the transfer of the rights to wemakefedora.org. The reason is that the company’s trademark, the “Fedora”, has been used in the man’s name." [0] https://bit.ly/3u9tnnP https://bit.ly/3u9tnnP
rurban 5y ago
Pocock explains it here: https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/ https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-vol... almost like the shit show at the FSFE and Debian recently.

122 points by jaboutboul 5y ago

>>The domain name is not used in bad faith, given that the web site directs people back to the trademark owner's site, doesn't ask for money, doesn't run banner advertising, doesn't ask for personal registration. It has been demonstrated that the trademark owner is suppressing the blogs of some volunteers with authorship rights and Respondent’s site exists to give those voices an equal status. The founding documents published by the trademark owner (Exhibit 104) encourage us to give voice to all sides. Fail to understand fedora's motives here other than censorship

tialaramex 5y ago
Fedora doesn't like Pocock because - I think many people would agree - he's an asshole. However, as Thomas More puts it in the play about his life and betrayal, "there's no law against that".
- pipapocock 5y ago
- Handytinge 5y ago
  For what it's worth, I've been at a number of conferences with him in the past and whilst I don't know him intimately, he's always seemed a nice and good natured person yo me.
zozbot234 5y ago
You have to enforce your trademarks otherwise they might be declared invalid. Regardless of the final decision, what RedHat did seems pretty normal to me.
- atdrummond 5y ago
  This notion that surefire mark enforcement can only be achieved through blanket legal action against all potential abusers of the mark is parroted on HN repeatedly; however, the real world situation is a bit more complex. A firm will not lose their trademarks if they don't aggressively sue each and every person/business who might potentially be infringing upon the firm's marks. In fact, for firms like Red Hat who are actively selling a product, (and therefore utilizing the mark in commerce and in a way that makes that mark very well known to potential customers) said ongoing business operations typically ensure that courts will regard one's mark as defended and active, especially if one ensures that the firm does go after the most very egregious violations. TL;DR: Firms do not need to obsessively litigate against every single person using their mark.

sofixa 5y ago

If anyone wants a TLDR: > DECISION Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding RH are markedly less nice than before IBM took over, which is a pity.

supernovae 5y ago
No they’re not. IBM has left Red Hat alone.
- worthless-trash 5y ago
  Can confirm. Dont see any IBM at all in any level.
- sofixa 5y ago
  So it's just a coincidence that since the acquisition RH have done things like drastically changing CentOS just after 8 came out ( the right time for a strategy shift was before that) and harassing community members ( the present case)?
  - nix23 5y ago
    You have to believe him...plain simple ;)
  - smcl 5y ago
    From the looks of things, Daniel Pocock appears to be less of a community member, and more of a troll
  - supernovae 5y ago
    CentOS changed for the better, it’s now upstream rhel rather than a clone of rhel. The messaging was lost… Red Hat does the upstream paradigm for everything else so it just kind of makes sense once you look into it.

jffry 5y ago

If this seems too long to read, it's about a domain name registration dispute between RedHat and a volunteer who registered wemakefedora.org (RedHat was seeking to gain control over the domain). The arbiter not only found against RedHat but also made a declaration that the dispute was brought in bad faith. The condensed excerpt is: "Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <wemakefedora.org> domain name both because Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark." and from the conclusion, "In light of these circumstances the Panel finds that Complainant brought this proceeding despite having clear knowledge of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the proceeding was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder."

phendrenad2 5y ago
So, it's a good outcome.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Possibly? The domain owner does appear to have a history of bad behavior in a wide range of communities, including harassment. The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible. However, purposely annoying a large corporation does not mean their site doesn't also serve an actual purpose, or that it constitutes trademark infringement. I don't think I see much potential for actual confusion or financial loss, so it's hard to see a strong reason to revoke the domain.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    Bringing a lawsuit against someone when the only grounds you have is you don’t like what they are doing and you know that is the definition of “bad faith”. The defendant may be an asshole, but they have every legal right to be one. RedHat is so clearly in the wrong, it’s disgusting.

jaboutboul 5y ago

There’s a lot more to it than just this decision. Google the complainants name.

forty 5y ago
Some hint in the comments here https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/ https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/
tzs 5y ago
> Google the complainants name The complainant is Red Hat. I don't see anything interesting when I Google them. Googling the respondent, Daniel Pocock, is a lot more interesting.

rwmj 5y ago

Comments on the LWN article are interesting: https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/ https://lwn.net/Articles/887931/

kashyapc 5y ago
Yeah, this particular comment[1] is quite damning—the person got booted by FOSDEM, FSF Europe, Debian[2], Alpine Linux and more. I wonder if the court considered all this past evidence. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/887955/ https://lwn.net/Articles/887955/ [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953378;msg=12 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953378;msg...
- Karellen 5y ago
  > I wonder if the court considered all this past evidence. Sorry, the guy very much appears to be an asshole - but how does any of that count as "evidence" in the matter of whether or not his domain infringes on Red Hat's trademark?
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    - notriddle 5y ago
      Letting Pocock keep the domain is not a fact. It is a choice. The choice is based on law, and the rendering of the judgement was based on facts, but it is ultimately turning out this way because some people once upon a time decided that domain names should: * be first-come first serve * be rented for an ongoing, nominal subscription * to the maximum extent allowed by law Giving up any one of these properties, and the Internet would be a totally different place. And none of these are fundamental human rights, or necessary for free speech. They’re just designed to work this way because someone thought it was the best way to avoid various stupid, useless outcomes, like domain names being permanently lost because the owner dies, or some teenagers squatting all the domain names because they think it’s funny, or having an important organization get hijacked because someone manages to fill out a form before the group that really can lay a legitimate claim to that name does it. None of these are facts. They’re values. You cannot factually prove these things. The only thing you might be able to prove is that, out of all the things we might want from a namespace system, you have to make trade-offs.

MadsRC 5y ago

The respondent is quite the character… He’s been expelled from the Debian project/community (source: https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117 https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117) and he’s in pretty bad standing with Free Software Foundation Europe.

worik 5y ago
Even if they are a reprobate they deserve fair treatment.
- gwd 5y ago
  Right, but it does call into question whether those "posts which have been deleted from FedoraPlanet" are genuine or are defamatory nonsense. It also calls into question whether he is really intending to represent the Fedora developer community (as implied by the choice of domain name), or whether he's actually intending to harass and spread falsehood. For instance, would he allow a post signed by prominent members of the Fedora community, describing his harassment and defamation in the Debian and Fedora channels, to be posted there? If not, then he's not acting in good faith.
unmole 5y ago
What was the actual infraction?
- hoseja 5y ago
rurban 5y ago
yes, he dared to critize them on obvious shit shows. both organizations need to be critized on their actions.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

Mr. Pocock is well known in the Debian community. https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117 https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117

nix23 5y ago

Oh look RedHat got that IBM spirit finally ;)

gnufx 5y ago

This bit of [1], referred to in [2], seems relevant: "their site owners, moderators, administrators, and users are required to comply with the Fedora Code of Conduct. Community sites and accounts which are unable to meet this standard of conduct will be required to cease use of the Fedora trademarks," I wasn't previously aware of it, but [3] may also be relevant. (I know no more than appeared on the devel list, other than history elsewhere.) They may have cocked up the case, but a finding of bad faith against Red Hat seems unlikely to be fair, given the above. 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd=Legal/TrademarkGuidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd... 2. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/22OTDONAMUECMP4OIJK64QEAISJBKNHK/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fe... 3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pocock https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pocock

encryptluks2 5y ago
> Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark. It is bad faith because Respondent was not using the trademark to pretend to be Red Hat. Tarnishing a trademark would require misleading users to think that you are representing the company. If I create a website called microsoftsucks.com and detail reasons why I think Microsoft sucks, that is fair use. If I pretend to represent Microsoft on that site, then that is tarnishing Microsoft's trademark, or if I use the domain to sells shirts then that may not be considered fair use.
- supernovae 5y ago
  the domain name itself is in bad faith.. it’s more like registering wemakemicrosoftwindows.com
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Agreed, but "bad faith" is only one of the 3 requirements that need to be proved in a domain case like this.

pmontra 5y ago

> FINDINGS > Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has brought the Complaint primarily to harass the domain-name holder.

userbinator 5y ago

Respondent is using the FEDORA mark in the domain name to identify Complainant for the purpose of operating a website that contains some criticism of Complainant. Such use is generally described as "fair use" of a trademark. This is a good precedent, regardless of what you think of the respondent.

ineedasername 5y ago
Yes, there's a difference between "I don't like this person and what they are doing" compared to "they shouldn't be allowed to do it"

snvzz 5y ago

Respondent's public reaction on the decision[0]. 0. https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/ https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-vol...

ggm 5y ago

UDRP is not meant to say "you're the asshat, so I'm giving it to the one I like" RedHat have good reasons to want the other chap pushed off the cliff, but thats not what UDRP is for. The asshat has a basis to want their platform, they used it to do what they want, and they have a basis to believe they applied for it, legitemately under terms of use of the name, which met the rules If you want to pull toys from an asshat, find the right rule in the rulebook to do it. This wasn't the right rule.

slater 5y ago

edit: nm

thematrixturtle 5y ago

TL;DR: FINDINGS Complainant [Red Hat] has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief and has brought the Complaint primarily to harass the domain-name holder [Daniel, who owns wemakefedora.org]. ... Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wemakefedora.org> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

poppafuze 5y ago

Arbitration is why we can't have nice things.

pengaru 5y ago

RedHat's parent IBM, has a rather interesting history when it comes to litigation assholery AIUI. The late Chuck Peddle described some of it in [0] IIRC. Pocock has a reputation for being an antagonistic asshole, but if there's even a shred of IBM representation on RedHat's side I'm inclined to chuckle in a pot-meet-kettle fashion at this situation. [0] https://theamphour.com/241-an-interview-with-chuck-peddle-charismatic-chipmaking-coryphaeus/ https://theamphour.com/241-an-interview-with-chuck-peddle-ch...

levi_n 5y ago

Incase anyone else was curious why this went to arbitration [0]: "Disputes relating top-level domain name names may be settled outside of court under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. (UDRP) as adopted by ICANN. Arbitrator in such cases will be appointed by one of the ICANN approved dispute resolution providers. Red Hat approached the US-based National Arbitration Forum on January 17, 2022. NAF released a document stating that Red Hat’s sole demand was for the transfer of the rights to wemakefedora.org. The reason is that the company’s trademark, the “Fedora”, has been used in the man’s name." [0] https://bit.ly/3u9tnnP https://bit.ly/3u9tnnP

rurban 5y ago

Pocock explains it here: https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-volunteers-and-fedora-foundations/ https://danielpocock.com/harassment-decision-victory-for-vol... almost like the shit show at the FSFE and Debian recently.