4 ms·

This sounds like some good old FUD. Unfortunately, attacking me, or my family, doesn't make for a constructive argument. Last time I checked, my personal blog

by Dries 17y ago

This sounds like some good old FUD. Unfortunately, attacking me, or my family, doesn't make for a constructive argument. Last time I checked, my personal blog was ... my personal blog. I'm not asking you to be a reader of my blog. Anyway, I've owned the Drupal trademark for a long time. The lack of a Drupal trademark policy doesn't mean the trademark was unprotected -- it was protected by trademark law. The lack of a Drupal trademark policy meant that it was unclear what was allowed and what wasn't allowed, and frankly, that you were bound by trademark law. By creating a trademark policy and a licensing procedure, we've provided us options we did not have before. Things have become more permissive. The goal of our new policy is to provide guidance and clarity on how the Drupal trademark is allowed to be used. The goal of the policy is to create a fair-level playing ground for all people and organizations that are part of the Drupal community. The entire process of developing the policy was a community effort, with help from a variety of legal experts. We worked on the policy over the course of almost two years. A draft version of the policy was posted at http://groups.drupal.org/node/19068 http://groups.drupal.org/node/19068, and through the community feedback that developed there, we ironed out many of the wrinkles of my original draft. Larry Garfield, the Drupal Association's current legal representative has provided feedback, and both my own attorney (DLA Piper) and additional attorneys from the Software Freedom Law Center and the Drupal Association were part of the policy's development. To help validate our work, we reviewed other similar policies from sister projects to make sure that we were in-line with the current legal trends in open-source development.

jacquesm 17y ago
Hi Dries, The poster of the article here. You probably don't remember me but a while ago there was an extortion attempt by the holder of drupal.se, I offered to buy the domain and donate it to you. So much for my stance on whether I think you are the 'rightful owner' of drupal.org and/or the drupal trademark. I agree with you on the slurs in the article posted, but that should probably be taken in light of the heat of the moment. That said, I think the policy that you have put in place is - for want of better terms - less than elegant. It presumes a say in the income streams of companies clustered around the drupal brand, it presumes that it is ok to dump this on us one fine morning in August, without consultation or consideration. It's a bit like the mob movies, one day some guy walks in to your shop and explains that you have a new partner. He'll tell you how to allocate your funds and what your profit margin can be. In return for not having something bad happen to your company. And all that because you share your Italian ancestry in your name. Sure, you started drupal. And sure, you are by far the single largest contributor to its success. But overall the other people that have been contributing to drupal hold a much larger share in the total than you. First thing I knew about this whole thing was when I read about it on the link posted here. I read the trademark policy (blue on a bluegray background, you owe me a new pair of eyes) in its entirety and my conclusion was very simple: You've lost it. I don't care which big name companies and advisors have had a hand in crafting this, I refuse to accept these terms. There was - as far as I know - never a single mailing to the drupal community in its entirety about this policy, which would have been an excellent way of telling people that something important that might affect them is happening. That would have gone a long long way towards getting people involved. By foregoing that opportunity you will now have to live with having that discussion 'after the fact'. And a lot more public. And with people that are upset. In the link you present above less than 20 people are involved out of a community that numbers probably in the 10's of thousands. That alone should make you wonder if you had a broad enough exposure for the process. Shades of the hitchhikers guide planning council there. A one-sided automatic license may be possible according to the laws in Belgium, I'm no expert on Belgian law. But I do know that usually it is not sufficient to post a license agreement somewhere on a website and to expect parties to be bound by it. Especially parties that have been active for a long long time using the word 'drupal' in their domain name. Even if they did not have an agreement in place before. After all, if according to you a thread on drupal.org is sufficient notice then by extension you should have known about our existence. So, now we are at a stalemate. I refuse to accept your terms to licensing the use of the word drupal under your current proposal. And you think that I should get a license. I don't think it should be your right to muzzle critics about drupal by saying which domain names they can register and which they can not. And I'm not even a critic of drupal, just of this policy. Criticism is good for you. As long as such a domain is used to vent criticism of the product and not in any way used to extort then that party is in the clear. I don't think it should be your right to - after years of being aware that companies are creating entities affiliated with the drupal name - suddenly start telling those people how they can or can not run their businesses. Under those conditions I wish you best of luck with your CMS, and I hope that in time you will come to the conclusion that this policy the way it is worded right now is over the top. And that you will amend it, or at least strip out the more obvious over the top bits. I'm not sure who advised you on that part, but you could have a look at the lockheedsucks.com case. It is enlightening. I guarantee you that drupalsucks.com is not going to be used to either extort you and / or your company. best regards, Jacques Mattheij

by Dries 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Hi Dries, The poster of the article here. You probably don't remember me but a while ago there was an extortion attempt by the holder of drupal.se, I offered to buy the domain and donate it to you. So much for my stance on whether I think you are the 'rightful owner' of drupal.org and/or the drupal trademark. I agree with you on the slurs in the article posted, but that should probably be taken in light of the heat of the moment. That said, I think the policy that you have put in place is - for want of better terms - less than elegant. It presumes a say in the income streams of companies clustered around the drupal brand, it presumes that it is ok to dump this on us one fine morning in August, without consultation or consideration. It's a bit like the mob movies, one day some guy walks in to your shop and explains that you have a new partner. He'll tell you how to allocate your funds and what your profit margin can be. In return for not having something bad happen to your company. And all that because you share your Italian ancestry in your name. Sure, you started drupal. And sure, you are by far the single largest contributor to its success. But overall the other people that have been contributing to drupal hold a much larger share in the total than you. First thing I knew about this whole thing was when I read about it on the link posted here. I read the trademark policy (blue on a bluegray background, you owe me a new pair of eyes) in its entirety and my conclusion was very simple: You've lost it. I don't care which big name companies and advisors have had a hand in crafting this, I refuse to accept these terms. There was - as far as I know - never a single mailing to the drupal community in its entirety about this policy, which would have been an excellent way of telling people that something important that might affect them is happening. That would have gone a long long way towards getting people involved. By foregoing that opportunity you will now have to live with having that discussion 'after the fact'. And a lot more public. And with people that are upset. In the link you present above less than 20 people are involved out of a community that numbers probably in the 10's of thousands. That alone should make you wonder if you had a broad enough exposure for the process. Shades of the hitchhikers guide planning council there. A one-sided automatic license may be possible according to the laws in Belgium, I'm no expert on Belgian law. But I do know that usually it is not sufficient to post a license agreement somewhere on a website and to expect parties to be bound by it. Especially parties that have been active for a long long time using the word 'drupal' in their domain name. Even if they did not have an agreement in place before. After all, if according to you a thread on drupal.org is sufficient notice then by extension you should have known about our existence. So, now we are at a stalemate. I refuse to accept your terms to licensing the use of the word drupal under your current proposal. And you think that I should get a license. I don't think it should be your right to muzzle critics about drupal by saying which domain names they can register and which they can not. And I'm not even a critic of drupal, just of this policy. Criticism is good for you. As long as such a domain is used to vent criticism of the product and not in any way used to extort then that party is in the clear. I don't think it should be your right to - after years of being aware that companies are creating entities affiliated with the drupal name - suddenly start telling those people how they can or can not run their businesses. Under those conditions I wish you best of luck with your CMS, and I hope that in time you will come to the conclusion that this policy the way it is worded right now is over the top. And that you will amend it, or at least strip out the more obvious over the top bits. I'm not sure who advised you on that part, but you could have a look at the lockheedsucks.com case. It is enlightening. I guarantee you that drupalsucks.com is not going to be used to either extort you and / or your company. best regards, Jacques Mattheij