3 ms·

Trademarks are for names. Copyright is what you're thinking of and it applies to a 'work' that you create like a program, source code, drawing, music, etc: htt

Trademarks are for names. Copyright is what you're thinking of and it applies to a 'work' that you create like a program, source code, drawing, music, etc: https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ So the person or people that wrote the code own the copyright to it and can control how it's licensed.

cowtools 4y ago
I know, but if the program is licensed with GPL somewhere, what is legally stopping another person from distributing it on the windows store or whatever (other than trademarks associated with the name, for example the "Ubuntu" trademark)? If there is nothing legally stopping them from doing that, then how is Microsoft going to arbitrarily enforce these new rules?
- kaba0 4y ago
  In the EU, isn’t it the case that you can’t completely give up your rights as a creator? So in a way, GPL is not even completely compatible with EU-laws? IANAL, just asking the question, I might be super wrong.
- psandor 4y ago
  Not sure about GPL, but this is one of the very few (2-4) restrictions of a BSD license: "Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
  - cowtools 4y ago
    I'm not talking about the names of the copyright holders or contributors. I'm talking about the name of the software.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  There's no legal avenue, if the license allows distribution of the code/binaries then it can be distributed anywhere. But Microsoft's store is a private marketplace (despite costing nothing in dollars to use/view). They can make whatever rules they want for the software they distribute or allow to be distributed there. First amendment, etc. doesn't apply. If Microsoft decided only software with unicorns and bunny rabbits could be distributed on their store, they are pefectly within their rights to mandate and enforce it.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    Okay, but just because they can unfairly discriminate on "their" operating system doesn't mean that they should or that we shouldn't resist/discuss it. I don't care if microsoft's store is a private marketplace. People should have the right to run whatever programs they want on their own hardware.
    - init2null 4y ago
      They absolutely should, but that's why we need to retain the ability to download and install outside of the store. As long as we have that ability, this isn't a concern.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        I'm not sure how far that "whatever programs they want" goes - e.g. you can't legally run MacOS apps on non-Apple hardware. If MS decided the store was the only way to install apps into Windows, is that much different? Both platforms of course need to be able to support compiling from source and executing the resulting binary , which is sufficient to ensure OSS software will never be banished entirely.

cowtools 4y ago

I know, but if the program is licensed with GPL somewhere, what is legally stopping another person from distributing it on the windows store or whatever (other than trademarks associated with the name, for example the "Ubuntu" trademark)? If there is nothing legally stopping them from doing that, then how is Microsoft going to arbitrarily enforce these new rules?

kaba0 4y ago
In the EU, isn’t it the case that you can’t completely give up your rights as a creator? So in a way, GPL is not even completely compatible with EU-laws? IANAL, just asking the question, I might be super wrong.
psandor 4y ago
Not sure about GPL, but this is one of the very few (2-4) restrictions of a BSD license: "Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
- cowtools 4y ago
  I'm not talking about the names of the copyright holders or contributors. I'm talking about the name of the software.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
There's no legal avenue, if the license allows distribution of the code/binaries then it can be distributed anywhere. But Microsoft's store is a private marketplace (despite costing nothing in dollars to use/view). They can make whatever rules they want for the software they distribute or allow to be distributed there. First amendment, etc. doesn't apply. If Microsoft decided only software with unicorns and bunny rabbits could be distributed on their store, they are pefectly within their rights to mandate and enforce it.
- cowtools 4y ago
  Okay, but just because they can unfairly discriminate on "their" operating system doesn't mean that they should or that we shouldn't resist/discuss it. I don't care if microsoft's store is a private marketplace. People should have the right to run whatever programs they want on their own hardware.
  - init2null 4y ago
    They absolutely should, but that's why we need to retain the ability to download and install outside of the store. As long as we have that ability, this isn't a concern.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I'm not sure how far that "whatever programs they want" goes - e.g. you can't legally run MacOS apps on non-Apple hardware. If MS decided the store was the only way to install apps into Windows, is that much different? Both platforms of course need to be able to support compiling from source and executing the resulting binary , which is sufficient to ensure OSS software will never be banished entirely.