4 ms·

Drupal has become a known brand over the years, seems no more than prudent to protect it. The software is GPL, so your rights are safe. You can take the code an

by Steve0 17y ago

Drupal has become a known brand over the years, seems no more than prudent to protect it. The software is GPL, so your rights are safe. You can take the code and fork the hell out of it. You just can't call it "Steve0's Improved Drupal". I don't get it, people are given code for free, to use modify and learn from. Still they complain that not everyone can use the 'brandname' for whatever use they see fit.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
Drupal has become a known brand over the years, seems no more than prudent to protect it. The stakes are far more important than this sentence would suggest. Drupal's trademark protection is the lynchpin of its security, for example. Without careful trademark protection for the name Drupal, there's no law which stops me from opening up a site called "Official Drupal Upgrades" and distributing module upgrades full of deliberately-introduced security backdoors. I'm legally permitted to write insecure code. I'm legally permitted to distribute insecure code and to encourage you to install it. I'm even allowed to base that insecure code on Drupal, because Drupal is GPL. [1] The only way to stop me from confusing Drupal users, possibly in a very dangerous way, is to enforce the trademark. --- [1] I do have to give you the source code, and if you do a security audit on that code you might find my security backdoors. But how many Drupal users read every line of their modules' source code, let alone understand it all? Eliminating the need to bestow loving care on each and every line of your source code is one of the Drupal project's major goals.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  The only insecure drupal code I've ever downloaded came from drupal.org. With some regularity even. If you have an example of where the drupal licensing terms - which seem to be geared towards commerce - have been used to combat the spread of malware that would be helpful, I can't seem to locate any using the major search engines.
  - Dries 17y ago
    This is a pretty poor reply to a valid argument. Either way, I'm more than willing to listen to feedback, and make changes to the trademark policy. As explained in this thread, the policy was developed with the help of the community, and I'll continue to refine and improve the policy based on constructive feedback and concrete suggestions. Unfortunately, so far, I've not seen concrete suggestions -- this entire discussion seems to be pretty trollish.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Ok, let me make it explicit: - Parties that had an operation going before this policy became public are not and will not be bound by it now or in the future. (grandfather clause) - registering domains that are critical of drupal is fine, in fact drupal should welcome criticism, even when drupal does not control the forum. The need for that is evidenced by the fact that criticism on the drupal.org site is not always taken in a way that invites further criticism. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and by trying to control the forum you are effectively saying that drupal is afraid of criticism in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft are afraid of criticism. We're talking about an open source CMS here, no need to go overboard. - remove the ridiculous claims that all proceeds from projects involving the drupal name should go towards 'fostering drupal software'. Live and let live. That's my reading of the wording right now, maybe your interpretation differs. - reserve the right to enforce your trademark rights in sofar as the use of the name directly damages drupal with malicious intent. (such as that guy that had registered drupal.se that I mentioned elsewhere). And last but not least, simplify the thing, make it at least less than 1/3 the size it is right now. If you expect people to read it and post if front and center on drupal.org so that a person new to drupal has no way to get to the software without knowing what the rules of the game are. Specific enough ?
chaosmachine 17y ago
It's fine to protect the Drupal trademark, but it should be done for the right reasons, and in the right way. Linux gets it right: http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php
- Dries 17y ago
  Linux is actually much more aggressive about protecting its trademark. Random example: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/2149225&tid=163 http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/2149225&#3... "Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required), if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing. About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm. Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application."

by Steve0 17y ago

mechanical_fish 17y ago

Drupal has become a known brand over the years, seems no more than prudent to protect it. The stakes are far more important than this sentence would suggest. Drupal's trademark protection is the lynchpin of its security, for example. Without careful trademark protection for the name Drupal, there's no law which stops me from opening up a site called "Official Drupal Upgrades" and distributing module upgrades full of deliberately-introduced security backdoors. I'm legally permitted to write insecure code. I'm legally permitted to distribute insecure code and to encourage you to install it. I'm even allowed to base that insecure code on Drupal, because Drupal is GPL. [1] The only way to stop me from confusing Drupal users, possibly in a very dangerous way, is to enforce the trademark. --- [1] I do have to give you the source code, and if you do a security audit on that code you might find my security backdoors. But how many Drupal users read every line of their modules' source code, let alone understand it all? Eliminating the need to bestow loving care on each and every line of your source code is one of the Drupal project's major goals.

jacquesm 17y ago
The only insecure drupal code I've ever downloaded came from drupal.org. With some regularity even. If you have an example of where the drupal licensing terms - which seem to be geared towards commerce - have been used to combat the spread of malware that would be helpful, I can't seem to locate any using the major search engines.
- Dries 17y ago
  This is a pretty poor reply to a valid argument. Either way, I'm more than willing to listen to feedback, and make changes to the trademark policy. As explained in this thread, the policy was developed with the help of the community, and I'll continue to refine and improve the policy based on constructive feedback and concrete suggestions. Unfortunately, so far, I've not seen concrete suggestions -- this entire discussion seems to be pretty trollish.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Ok, let me make it explicit: - Parties that had an operation going before this policy became public are not and will not be bound by it now or in the future. (grandfather clause) - registering domains that are critical of drupal is fine, in fact drupal should welcome criticism, even when drupal does not control the forum. The need for that is evidenced by the fact that criticism on the drupal.org site is not always taken in a way that invites further criticism. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and by trying to control the forum you are effectively saying that drupal is afraid of criticism in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft are afraid of criticism. We're talking about an open source CMS here, no need to go overboard. - remove the ridiculous claims that all proceeds from projects involving the drupal name should go towards 'fostering drupal software'. Live and let live. That's my reading of the wording right now, maybe your interpretation differs. - reserve the right to enforce your trademark rights in sofar as the use of the name directly damages drupal with malicious intent. (such as that guy that had registered drupal.se that I mentioned elsewhere). And last but not least, simplify the thing, make it at least less than 1/3 the size it is right now. If you expect people to read it and post if front and center on drupal.org so that a person new to drupal has no way to get to the software without knowing what the rules of the game are. Specific enough ?

chaosmachine 17y ago

It's fine to protect the Drupal trademark, but it should be done for the right reasons, and in the right way. Linux gets it right: http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php

Dries 17y ago
Linux is actually much more aggressive about protecting its trademark. Random example: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/2149225&tid=163 http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/2149225&#3... "Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required), if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing. About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm. Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application."