From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Subject: Re: Express Logic claims GUIX trademark Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:00:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87a7i1jkxr.fsf@nckx> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60590) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3VTK-0003e6-Fk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:40:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3VI4-0000WH-Ct for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:29:09 -0400 Received: from tobias.gr ([2001:470:7405::1]:35528) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3VI4-0000Um-1b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:29:08 -0400 In-reply-to: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: mikadoZero Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Guix, mikadoZero, I know you're not a fan of [the common pronunciation of] the name=20 Guix, but going straight from my ironic quote of a shitty PDF to a=20 public and =E2=80=98proactive name change=E2=80=99 proposal is at best prem= ature. > If it is the case that Guix the free software project does not=20 > have a > trademark for Guix, then I would like to share what looks like a=20 > clear > parallel. It involves another free software project that used=20 > to be > called Jade. Jade did not have a trademark for Jade. A=20 > software > company had the trademark for Jade. The company forced Jade to=20 > change > it's name. Wow. That's super disingenuous (by =E2=80=98that=E2=80=99 I mean the origi= nal=20 posts[0], which you accurately paraphrase). It certainly didn't=20 leave me with the favourable impression of the Free software=20 project that was probably intended. Yes, if you start a software repo in 2010 using the name that a=20 software(!) company had registered in 2003 for their (you guessed=20 it) software, you might be =E2=80=98forced=E2=80=99 to be just a bit more=20 original. The heart truly weeps. At least they restyled=20 themselves Pug and not UnderDog. So no, and luckily for everyone, there are few parallels to Guix=20 to be found here. It took me all of 20 seconds to find the actual GUIX trademark=20 registration[1], so we can stop basing this discussion on=20 regrettable typographical choices in press releases. It's 4 months old. Meanwhile, we have: commit 207cba8114d354737b231e510d6110ea2a42e07b Author: Ludovic Court=C3=A8s Date: Wed Apr 18 23:21:11 2012 +0200 Initial commit. Do 6+ years of prior public use trump registration? Not=20 necessarily, but it's a far cry from what the Jade-lang folks did. I think we should talk to a lawyer. Kind regards, T G-R [0]: https://github.com/pugjs/pug/issues/2184 [1]:=20 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=3D87948650&caseType=3DSERIAL_NO&searchTyp= e=3DstatusSearch