Trademarks: A threat to free software's freedom? (NewsForge)

Posted Nov 6, 2004 16:11 UTC (Sat) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

You make a good point. What if someone nefarious decided to name their
proprietary spam filter Spamassasin? Or their proprietary spreadsheet
Gnumeric? Or Opera deciding it could increase their marketshare by
renaming their product Firefox or Konqueror?

Get it here for $49.95!

These names have value. Linux, Evolution, Gnome, Kde, Firefox, Apache,
PHP, Perl, etc. They mean something good, useful, solid, free, etc.

The GPL uses copyright law to protect free software developers, at the
same time encouraging free use and modification. Maybe we need a GPT
which protects trademarks from nefarious uses while allowing the freedoms
we expect in line with the GPL.

Derek

Posted Nov 6, 2004 16:11 UTC (Sat) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

Given that when a trademark is well managed, it seems to provide a protection for software freedom, should we not see this as potentially an opportunity, in the same way that copyright can also be used to protect software freedom ?

That's why I proposed to the AbiWord developers that they just have a trademark license that mirrors the GNU GPL (which is what they use for their copyright license) wherever applicable. That way, if someone violates the GPL with respect to AbiWord, the AbiWord folks (well, probably only Dom) have standing to sue under both the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act.

That suggestion was rebuffed, though, with the objection from one of the AbiWord channel denizens (not Dom) that "copyrights and trademarks aren't the same thing! Get it through your head!". While true, this objection seemed irrelevant to my suggestion (given that I said "wherever applicable").

If the reason for rejecting this proposal is that the AbiWord developers (well, just Dom, as he is the sole trademark holder) wants to be able to exercise discretion to withdraw the trademark license if a version of AbiWord is distributed under compliance with the GPL but the nature of the change is simply something he doesn't like, then in my opinion distributors need clear guidelines as to what is permitted under the trademark license and what is not.

But if Dom's speculation that everything Linux distributors do under the GNU GPL falls under "trademark fair use" is correct, then I don't understand how this fair use would suddenly go away if a distributor decided to rebind an AbiWord menu event to pop up a web browser and visit a porn site (which I think is one of the examples cited on the AbiWord discussion list referenced in the NewsForge article).

The safest course of action for any distributor is to simply stop using the marks, and that means changing the names, logos, and other identifying marks upon which a trademark has been asserted. That, however, doesn't seem to be the best way to express support for an open-source project. I think Debian is being pulled between three poles: 1) We want to have respectful and harmonious relationships with our upstreams; 2) we want to minimize our own legal liability; 3) we want to encourage and reinforce sound licensing practices.

For corporate-backed distributions, concern 2) is paramount, concern 1) comes in a distant second, and 3) seems to be considered almost not at all.