Hacker News Reader

It's not at all - that means you're ceding many rights to the authors of the software. Suppose I want to use open source X from Company Y, and they had that provision. Then I find that Company Y is pirating my software, slandering, hacking our servers - if I sue them, I now lose my license?

Why would I build on something that lets the owner act against me with relative impunity (assuming the software is something critical)?

View on HN

I considered that and I'll admit that I was being a bit lazy with my comment but I think it could be written in a reasonable way. Perhaps a license fee attached to any failed legal action. Or even limit to certain types of legal action.

We can't even be sure that Python-the-company is using Python-the software, so ...

Furthermore, I think the problem is not here, the PSF clearly made a mistake by not registering the name (it's not a matter of 'bad law'). If we apply your solution, then it would mean that a company which does not use Python can still ask to register a global trademark named on the term.

>the PSF clearly made a mistake by not registering the name (it's not a matter of 'bad law') //

You acquire some pretty reasonable rights in a trademark by virtue of use alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com