3 ms·

> - Is this a new tactic, at least in terms of open source communities Large open source projects have trademarks since forever. Nothing seems particularly nov

> - Is this a new tactic, at least in terms of open source communities Large open source projects have trademarks since forever. Nothing seems particularly novel here.

jchw 2y ago
That's not a fair characterization. Large open source projects haven't even existed forever! And none of the obvious large open source projects from the earlier days started out having foundations or trademarks. Clearly, it had to have a genesis somewhere.
- II2II 2y ago
  I don't know if this is the genesis, but the first time this came to my attention was with Linux. Basically: a third-party trademarked Linux several years after the project's origin, then started going after companies that were distributing Linux. Legal battle ensued. Linus Torvalds was eventually assigned the trademark. Innocence lost. Trademarks likely existed for (what we would now call) open source software prior to that, but I think Linux was a turning point since it meant that community (rather than commercial) software now had to consider such prospects.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  Rust also didn’t start out with a trademark. But once they are established, trademarks come naturally.
  - jchw 2y ago
    Yes, which is sort of my point, of course things didn't start this way. No trademark means no trademark policy, after all. And more to the point, there was definitely a first time that an open source project instituted a trademark policy that says "You can use this name for unofficial events as long as it's clear its not official, but you must adhere to these additional rules when doing so." This sits somewhere between more and less restrictive trademark and brand policies that either allow it for a certain use case without much other consideration or disallow it without permission without much other consideration. It's hard to know exactly when it would even be considered enforceable, since referring to something by its name is usually not a violation of trademark in any case.

> - Is this a new tactic, at least in terms of open source communities Large open source projects have trademarks since forever. Nothing seems particularly novel here.

jchw 2y ago

That's not a fair characterization. Large open source projects haven't even existed forever! And none of the obvious large open source projects from the earlier days started out having foundations or trademarks. Clearly, it had to have a genesis somewhere.

II2II 2y ago
I don't know if this is the genesis, but the first time this came to my attention was with Linux. Basically: a third-party trademarked Linux several years after the project's origin, then started going after companies that were distributing Linux. Legal battle ensued. Linus Torvalds was eventually assigned the trademark. Innocence lost. Trademarks likely existed for (what we would now call) open source software prior to that, but I think Linux was a turning point since it meant that community (rather than commercial) software now had to consider such prospects.
the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
Rust also didn’t start out with a trademark. But once they are established, trademarks come naturally.
- jchw 2y ago
  Yes, which is sort of my point, of course things didn't start this way. No trademark means no trademark policy, after all. And more to the point, there was definitely a first time that an open source project instituted a trademark policy that says "You can use this name for unofficial events as long as it's clear its not official, but you must adhere to these additional rules when doing so." This sits somewhere between more and less restrictive trademark and brand policies that either allow it for a certain use case without much other consideration or disallow it without permission without much other consideration. It's hard to know exactly when it would even be considered enforceable, since referring to something by its name is usually not a violation of trademark in any case.