Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

I don't have a dog in this race, but I'm having a hard time seeing both sides. The code is GPL, it can be forked. Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked? Or is that some extra clause that this particular developer added to the license? Does the GPL say anything at all about trademarks? The name of the forked project seems to be kind of a weird hill to want to die on.

Linux is GPL'ed and the name Linux is also trademarked. But if I decided to port it to run on a lava lamp, what would be wrong with my calling the project "Linux for Lava Lamp"?

A fork's existence does not obligate the mainline maintainer to maintain the fork, no matter what the name of the fork is. As long as the forked project makes the relationship (or lack of relationship) and support expectations clear, I'm not sure what this battle was about.

View on HN

> As long as the forked project makes the relationship (or lack of relationship) and support expectations clear, I'm not sure what this battle was about.

This is what it’s about: the forked project was NOT clear about the relationship to the original.

You're having a hard time seeing the side where one side has a trademark on the project name and logo, and the other side is using those without permission?

"Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked? "

- GPL is defines copyright permissions for the software code: copying, modifying, and redistributing.

- Trademark protection controls use of a name, logo, slogan, or branding.

“Notepad++” is a protected trademark, so a fork is allowed to use the GPL-covered source code any way it wants, but it can not use the trademark Notepad++ in a way that suggests it is the original project or is endorsed by it.

It would be like someone forking GnuCash from GPL code and calling then it "Quicken for Linux." The source code can be forked, but the Intuit trademark prevents someone from using the name Quicken because it could confuse users.

Your comment makes the copyright/trademark split very clear, thanks! But doesn't the existence and enforcement of the trademark put conditions on the code fork that are incompatible with the GPL? If I'm GPLing my code, the license says you can copy it and redistribute it, including all the strings and graphical assets covered under the license. It doesn't generally carve out stuff that's trademarked as not covered by the license. I can go to the Linux tree right now, fork a copy ("Linux" strings and all), and distribute it on my web site, and be legally in the clear. Same is true for any other GPL project out there.

In this case, the issues under dispute are the cases where the trademark was used outside of the GPL-covered code.

Specifically the port author using the Notepad++ name and logo on their website, in addition to the photo and bio of the original Notepad++ author, in a way that could mislead others to think that this was part of the original Notepad++ project.

A post with screenshots is here: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/npp-trademark-infringemen...

Hosting a copy of the GPL'd Linux code, represented as such, and making a website claiming to represent Linux or the Linux Foundation with Linus's face and name on it are different things.

"Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds".

So you can fork all you want, but he can legally prevent you from calling it "Linux".

So, Linus himself can force someone to take down their mirrored kernel tarball? Wild. I suppose I learned something today.

Their modified kernel tarball, yes. The idea is if you create a forked version that instead is malware, that intercepts everything that happens on the computer and sends it off to an adversary, that trademark protections allow the original author of the non-malicious software to say you can't call it by the name that I'm using for my product because you've changed it and it's malicious now.

Trademark law is the most reasonable leg of the intellectual property triad, in my opinion.

No, don't think so. But he can force you to call it "Carrot" in all marketing materials. Although you have to state it's a modification of "Linux" because of the GPL :)

> Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked?

No, in the same way the GPL does not specify the user must use their own computer to develop the fork rather than taking the upstream maintainer's laptop home without asking.

The GPL grants no rights whatsoever to use the name, just the code.

But the GPL grants rights to use the code, which itself contains the name. Is there language in the license that exempts "the source code that contains the project name" from my ability to copy and redistribute it?

You're asking the wrong questions because you're mixing up copyright and trademark law.

The GPL covers copyright. It includes the source code, which as you noted contains the project name. This is why you may click "fork" on GitHub and wind up with a fork that is "yours" under the original name.

Trademark law is usage based. If you then set up a website for your fork under the original name, that's illegal. The fact that you're allowed to have a fork containing that name isn't relevant. Copyright allows the code, but you're now violating trademark law.

If you copy and redistribute the code as-is, on a website called, let's say opensourcesoftware.com, nobody can stop you.

If you copy and redistribute the code on a website called thisistheofficalsitefornotepadplusplus.com, because the ownership of the name Notepad++ is separate from the code.

If you copy and change the code before redistributing it, they can say you're not allowed to use the name Notepad++ and must change that part of the code. You asked a very pertinent question with "Does the GPL say anything at all about trademarks?" It does not, because it has nothing to do with copyright. It does say if you modify the source code, you must make available the your modifications under the same license.

If it helps, here's another way to think about it:

If you're a photographer, and someone signs a photo release form for you, that means you're allowed to use their photo in marketing materials.

It doesn't mean you're allowed to use their photo to get a passport in their name.

The photo release form doesn't need to have additional language saying "the photographer agrees not to use the photo to create a fraudulent passport" for this to be disallowed.

It’s the intersection of copyright and trademark law, where lots of folks get tripped up. The fork had a website that used the trademark owner’s trademark without permission. It has nothing to do with copyright or code.

> Linux is GPL'ed and the name Linux is also trademarked. But if I decided to port it to run on a lava lamp, what would be wrong with my calling the project "Linux for Lava Lamp"?

You can do this not because Linux is GPL, but because Linus Torvalds has authorized certain uses of this trademark in some form; I could not find specific information for Linux, but the Linux Foundation provides reference: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/brand-guidelines

Arch linux mentions this in their website I think that distros that user the linux name asked for permission to use it

The code is GPL, not the name.

How many forks do you know which have the same name as the original.

Imagine the confusion if Firefox is compatible with some feature but Firefox and Firefox aren’t.

Imagine who gets angry emails if the MacOS port does any damage and people google for the author of Notepad++

Just look what the author of curl get because people found curl somewhere and googled his name or found it in the source

https://daniel.haxx.se/email/toc.html

You said: "and support expectations clear,"

Therein lies the rub. By not honouring the trademark, the fork made the association of service, support, otherwise to Notepad++ making it seem like it was officially supported.

Imagine if someone who used the fork attempt to get support on a product that wasn't supported and, when faced with limited responsiveness, etc. decided to denigrate the original developer by lambasting them on HackerNews, et al. The reputational damage alone would be seen as a reason to defend the mark.

I work with a very large OSS nonprofit who has trademarks in most of the geos around the world and vigourously defends them for precisely this reason: reputational damage undercuts the community, the developers, and the reason for existence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com