Trademarking the snake

A quick search shows that there are almost 200 trademarked terms in the U.S. using the term "Python." This name has been reserved for use with lacrosse sticks, bungee cords, musical instruments, tape libraries, arc welding torches, radio-controlled toys, wire rope, motorcycle exhaust systems, perfumes, cryogenic pipes, floor polishers, carbonated beverages, "providing online adult entertainment by means of a global computer network," orthodontic adhesive, herbicides, garage door openers, and much more. There is also a registration for a programming language. The term "Python," in this context, belongs to the Python Software Foundation (PSF), and has since early 2004.

In November, the PSF announced the adoption of a formal policy for the use of the Python trademark. This policy has version 1.2.2, despite being the first posted policy for the use of this name. The rules disallow calling any other language "Python," so it's no fair slipping in a Perl interpreter; they also forbid using the term "in ways that confuse the community as to whether the Python programming language is open source and free to use."

One clause regarding how the term "Python" can be used has attracted a small amount of attention in the Debian community, however. It reads:

This rule would appear to take in commercial Linux distributors, all of whom should, from a strict reading, be getting permission from the Foundation. Debian, as a non-commercial distributor, should not be directly affected by this language, but anybody who redistributes Debian on a commercial basis could be.

The question which comes up is: what uses of the word "Python" fall under this policy? Is providing a python command sufficient? How about in the introductory text printed when python is run interactively? Does listing Python in an online package database count? Can the release notes brag about the version of Python shipped? How about running a "now includes Python 3000" Superbowl advertisement? The final case is covered by a separate term which forbids the use of "Python" in advertisements without prior permission. But the real location of the line separating free use from that which requires permission is not entirely clear.

At this time, there would appear to be little cause for concern; the PSF has little interest in harassing people who are using or distributing its code. After inquiring with the PSF, your editor was told that the policy was created as part of the legal requirement that trademarks be enforced if the holder wants to keep them. The PSF has not seen any misuses of the name that it felt the need to crack down on, and it does not feel that noting the inclusion of Python within a commercial product necessarily requires permission. Noting that a product contains Python is acceptable in just about any circumstances. The PSF wants to promote the use and development of Python; it appears to be uninterested in legal silliness.

That said, there are a couple of things which should be kept in mind here:

• The Python Software Foundation is a corporation, and corporations can change their minds quickly. Should the PSF - speaking entirely hypothetically now - decide to split off "Python Corporation" as a separate, for-profit entity, the approach to trademark policy and enforcement could change overnight.

• Trademark law (in the U.S., at least) requires the enforcement of trademarks. If a trademark holder can be shown to have overlooked known violations, it can lose its rights to the mark. The law, in other words, can force trademark holders to get into the cease-and-desist business, even if they would rather be writing code.

The number of free software projects with trademarks and associated policies would appear to be growing. The issues surrounding the Firefox trademark have been well discussed here and elsewhere. Xen has a trademark policy which is quite strict on whether a distributor can claim to ship Xen; see the Xen trademark FAQ for a view of their approach to trademark management. There are trademark policies for Perl, MySQL, GNOME, and, of course, Linux. The KDE and OpenOffice.org trademarks have been registered, but there does not appear to be a posted policy for their use. Fortunately, an attempt by Unipress to trademark "emacs" was not successful.

In recent times, there has been some concern over license proliferation, resulting in a determined effort to reduce the number of free software licenses in active use. It makes sense; every software license brings its own set of conditions and interactions to worry about. Every trademark license is unique, however; each one has its own set of quirks, any of which can be changed at any time with no public participation or notification. The continuation of this trend could lead to an increasing series of hassles for distributors; the long-term result could be more software shipped under iceweasel-like names.

It would be nice if free software projects would stop worrying about trademarks and get back to working on the code. Abuses of free project names have been few and far between. This outcome seems unlikely, however. Nobody likes to see their chosen name hijacked, and commercial organizations can be positively paranoid about the idea. So a more realistic solution might be the creation of some sort of standardized free trademark license. A known set of trademark terms, the same for each mark and drafted with an eye toward keeping the associated software free, could do much to make life easier for software distributors. It seems like a better alternative than being neck-deep in iceweasels.

---

(Log in to post comments)