| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Apple buys cupsApple buys cupsPosted Jul 19, 2007 2:32 UTC (Thu) by jwb (guest, #15467)In reply to: Apple buys cups by jamesh Parent article: Apple buys cups
Ah, I see. I was looking in the COPYING file which does not mention the trademark.
It seems contrary to the idea of free software that I might inadvertently do something with the software that is OK as far as copyright is concerned but somehow runs afoul of trademark law.
(Log in to post comments)
Not necessarily incompatible, but there are definitely issues Posted Jul 19, 2007 2:38 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] They're not necessarily incompatible, but there are definitely issues.The whole point of trademark is that users will know (and not be fooled) about exactly what they're getting. So if you want the "official Apple CUPS", trademarks can help you get what you wanted (in the sense that it'd be illegal to claim it for something that was not). From a FLOSS viewpoint, if you can make a change, and it's required that you change the name so that users will know what they're getting, that's okay. But yes, there are definitely issues. One problem is that OTHER programs will look for specific program names, and taken to extremes this could be a problem. Another is if you can't add patches without a name change as well, that can cause real trouble from logistical problems (distros have had that issue with Firefox).
Not necessarily incompatible, but there are definitely issues Posted Jul 19, 2007 9:57 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] Precedent (yellow pages / NIS) suggests that program names don't have to be changed. The NIS programs are still mostly named yp*. IANAL but I suspect it would be an issue only if there is a program called precisely cups, rather than cupssomething. (/usr/[share,lib]/cups do exist on my system).
Apple buys cups Posted Jul 19, 2007 5:26 UTC (Thu) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] The GPL gives you rights to the code, but not to the name. You can take the CUPS code and do anything with it that the GPL allows, but you can't CALL it CUPS if Apple doesn't want you to.
Overall, this is a pretty good tradeoff. It lets you modify code and distribute your changes, but it doesn't let you pass off your work as Apple's. By exercising control over the trademark, Apple can ensure its reputation isn't damaged by bugs and misfeatures you introduce, without actually preventing you from creating them. You get the freedoms the GPL cares about, and Apple can protect its good name.
This is the same reason that CheapBytes couldn't sell 'Red Hat Linux' CDs. They could make verbatim copies and sell them, but they couldn't call them Red Hat without permission. They had full rights to the code, but not to the trademark.
Apple buys cups Posted Jul 19, 2007 8:48 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Eventually it wasn't even true that CheapBytes could make verbatim copies. Nearly everything _interesting_ on the RHEL CDs or DVD is Free Software, but the contents also include Red Hat's trademarked logo, some branded documentation and contributed demoware, samples of future as-yet non-free software and so on.
Installing Dave's Linux and getting a Red Hat branded system is clearly not much more acceptable trademark-wise than just allowing Dave to call it Red Hat cheap edition so that had to stop.
So the similar-to-Red-Hat products you can download today are rebuilt from source with the trademarks removed where possible. They're recognisably Red Hat derived, but there's nothing to mislead the user into thinking that it's actually a Red Hat product, and I think that if you asked these other distributors after all this time, they'd agree that's a good thing.
|
|
||||||||||||