5 ms·

Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? It feels like they'd have a hard time making that case, since package

by akerl_ 2y ago

Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? It feels like they'd have a hard time making that case, since package repositories are pretty clearly not representing themselves as the owners of, or sponsored by, the software they package.

dismalaf 2y ago
> Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? Yup. The issue isn't the code but misrepresentation of the origin. It's like back in the day when Debian "forked" Firefox for reasons... Edit - worded it poorly - never meant to imply Debian did anything wrong, only that they changed the branding to respect Firefox's trademark and avoid the situation that OBS is threatening Fedora with.
- akerl_ 2y ago
  That's sort of the difference, isn't it? Debian forked Firefox and changed the code, so they had to rename it. But this doesn't look like changing the code, it's building it with different versions of its dependencies / different wrapping around it. Maybe there's a case here, but it feels pretty tenuous.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > Debian forked Firefox and changed the code Debian didn't actually change the code, but they consider the right to change the code important, and don't accept Debian-specific exceptions.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    That's "changing the code." The main issue that I see, is that OBS doesn't want to be held responsible for the Fedora version, which is different from the "officially-supported" OBS version. They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies. But modifying the build, is modifying the code. They are allowed to do that, but they probably aren't allowed to slap the OBS name on the result.
    - akerl_ 2y ago
      > But modifying the build, is modifying the code. Is it? Across Ubuntu, RHEL, and Archlinux, basically every package is being built against different versions of its underlying dependencies, and is being patched as needed to work with those distros. Trademarks weaken with lax enforcement, so you'd think if that interpretation held it would be amazingly dangerous for any trademark holder whose software was being packaged for Linux distros.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
        Maybe, but IANAL. Many build pipelines are almost as complex as the code they weave together.
      - rincebrain 2y ago
        I think the specific argument being made here, is that the technical details of how Fedora implements this mean that people who do not read carefully and click a checkbox may attempt to install the official flatpak version and get Fedora's rebuild of it instead, with no obvious cue that they did so, other than the bugs that they then go report, not understanding the internals of Fedora's opinions on flatpaks. I suppose the closest analogy I can imagine from non-malicious(arguably) history would be software hosting sites that would repackage installers with their own adware or toolbar or whatever "value add".
        akerl_ 2y ago
        I think it is possible that OBS could make that nuanced argument in court: that what Fedora is doing here confuses consumers specifically because of how they stack multiple default repos and override the 1st party package. But it would hinge on whether consumers are confused about the product they're getting, and I think that's unlikely to succeed. Notably, I think the fact that users are going to the OBS project to report bugs is more likely to work against their case than for it, because it shows that consumers do accurately realize that the OBS Project owns OBS, not Fedora.
        2y ago
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    Oh it's a way different situation (Debian followed every letter of both the license and trademark law), but is an example that most FOSS people remember of a trademark issue related to a distro packaging an OSS project and needing to change the branding.
remram 2y ago
From the linked comment: > This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project Honestly it sounds very reasonable, if you want to fork it's fine, but don't have people report bugs upstream if you're introducing them.
- akerl_ 2y ago
  I mean, I think the right fix is just for Fedora to stop packaging their own version. But I think that's about being good people; I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that.
  - westurner 2y ago
    Does Fedora's OBS ship with non-free codecs as required dependencies? What should they call the (demanded) fork? Also, Flatpaks have different file paths (like NixOS, which has updated packages according to e.g repology), and so selinux fails with many or most flatpaks.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    That's what they were originally asking for three weeks ago. Or that they would at least make it clear to users that their version isn't official. Both options have been going nowhere until the legal threat was made. Now suddenly both are happening
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that Isn't the argument that by mangling the software, they've created a version that is no longer the original software, and the the trademark owner want them to stop using the trademark to describe this new version? I think OBS would be happy enough if Fedora simply decided to release their own "FBS" package instead that was the same, other than describing it as "OBS", which the trademark owners have specifically said it's not. From the first line of the IceWeasel Wikipedia entry: > At issue were modifications not approved by the Mozilla Foundation, when the name for the software remained the same.

by akerl_ 2y ago

dismalaf 2y ago

> Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? Yup. The issue isn't the code but misrepresentation of the origin. It's like back in the day when Debian "forked" Firefox for reasons... Edit - worded it poorly - never meant to imply Debian did anything wrong, only that they changed the branding to respect Firefox's trademark and avoid the situation that OBS is threatening Fedora with.

akerl_ 2y ago
That's sort of the difference, isn't it? Debian forked Firefox and changed the code, so they had to rename it. But this doesn't look like changing the code, it's building it with different versions of its dependencies / different wrapping around it. Maybe there's a case here, but it feels pretty tenuous.
- lmm 2y ago
  > Debian forked Firefox and changed the code Debian didn't actually change the code, but they consider the right to change the code important, and don't accept Debian-specific exceptions.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  That's "changing the code." The main issue that I see, is that OBS doesn't want to be held responsible for the Fedora version, which is different from the "officially-supported" OBS version. They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies. But modifying the build, is modifying the code. They are allowed to do that, but they probably aren't allowed to slap the OBS name on the result.
  - akerl_ 2y ago
    > But modifying the build, is modifying the code. Is it? Across Ubuntu, RHEL, and Archlinux, basically every package is being built against different versions of its underlying dependencies, and is being patched as needed to work with those distros. Trademarks weaken with lax enforcement, so you'd think if that interpretation held it would be amazingly dangerous for any trademark holder whose software was being packaged for Linux distros.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
      Maybe, but IANAL. Many build pipelines are almost as complex as the code they weave together.
    - rincebrain 2y ago
      I think the specific argument being made here, is that the technical details of how Fedora implements this mean that people who do not read carefully and click a checkbox may attempt to install the official flatpak version and get Fedora's rebuild of it instead, with no obvious cue that they did so, other than the bugs that they then go report, not understanding the internals of Fedora's opinions on flatpaks. I suppose the closest analogy I can imagine from non-malicious(arguably) history would be software hosting sites that would repackage installers with their own adware or toolbar or whatever "value add".
      - akerl_ 2y ago
        I think it is possible that OBS could make that nuanced argument in court: that what Fedora is doing here confuses consumers specifically because of how they stack multiple default repos and override the 1st party package. But it would hinge on whether consumers are confused about the product they're getting, and I think that's unlikely to succeed. Notably, I think the fact that users are going to the OBS project to report bugs is more likely to work against their case than for it, because it shows that consumers do accurately realize that the OBS Project owns OBS, not Fedora.
        2y ago
- dismalaf 2y ago
  Oh it's a way different situation (Debian followed every letter of both the license and trademark law), but is an example that most FOSS people remember of a trademark issue related to a distro packaging an OSS project and needing to change the branding.

remram 2y ago

From the linked comment: > This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project Honestly it sounds very reasonable, if you want to fork it's fine, but don't have people report bugs upstream if you're introducing them.

akerl_ 2y ago
I mean, I think the right fix is just for Fedora to stop packaging their own version. But I think that's about being good people; I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that.
- westurner 2y ago
  Does Fedora's OBS ship with non-free codecs as required dependencies? What should they call the (demanded) fork? Also, Flatpaks have different file paths (like NixOS, which has updated packages according to e.g repology), and so selinux fails with many or most flatpaks.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  That's what they were originally asking for three weeks ago. Or that they would at least make it clear to users that their version isn't official. Both options have been going nowhere until the legal threat was made. Now suddenly both are happening
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that Isn't the argument that by mangling the software, they've created a version that is no longer the original software, and the the trademark owner want them to stop using the trademark to describe this new version? I think OBS would be happy enough if Fedora simply decided to release their own "FBS" package instead that was the same, other than describing it as "OBS", which the trademark owners have specifically said it's not. From the first line of the IceWeasel Wikipedia entry: > At issue were modifications not approved by the Mozilla Foundation, when the name for the software remained the same.