Re: debian names
Hi Bjørn, Quoting Bjørn Mork (2020-11-09 10:33:55) > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > > I would consider it highly unlikely that (Disney would claim and a court > > would agree with them, that) Pixar customers could confuse some Pixar > > products with a Debian release. > > I believe Disney lawyers are world famous for their ability to > construct a legal problem from thin air. Or maybe they don't even > need air if it is licensed? Evil tongues have claimed that Carl Barks > modelled Sylvester J. Sharky after one or more Disney lawyer: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Duck_universe_characters#Lawyer_Sharky > > In any case, the problem will be solved when Disney buys Debian. > That's how The Simpsons finally got away with all their Disney jokes. > > Or you might want to reference Don Rosas drawing of "the hardest, > toughest, most impervious substances known to mankind" at the bottom > of https://duck.neamar.fr/DUCK/the_universal_solvent True, but do courts equally commonly confirm Disney claims? Debian is shapen by common law, not fear of potential lawsuits. Otherwise many things in Debian would look different from how they do today. e.g. we avoid discussing patents because common law says awareness of them can be used against us, not because we are afraid of patents - see https://www.debian.org/legal/patent before discussing specific patents. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: debian names
Jonas Smedegaard writes: > I would consider it highly unlikely that (Disney would claim and a court > would agree with them, that) Pixar customers could confuse some Pixar > products with a Debian release. I believe Disney lawyers are world famous for their ability to construct a legal problem from thin air. Or maybe they don't even need air if it is licensed? Evil tongues have claimed that Carl Barks modelled Sylvester J. Sharky after one or more Disney lawyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Duck_universe_characters#Lawyer_Sharky In any case, the problem will be solved when Disney buys Debian. That's how The Simpsons finally got away with all their Disney jokes. Or you might want to reference Don Rosas drawing of "the hardest, toughest, most impervious substances known to mankind" at the bottom of https://duck.neamar.fr/DUCK/the_universal_solvent Bjørn
Intellectual Property Laws (Was: debian names)
On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 22:41 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> Using toy story names for debian releases surely isn't free from any
> Debian/pixar license ?
> Or is it ?
IANAL either, but I did a research project on IP law in the US, and our
usage of the names are almost certainly fine, as explained by Paul Sutton.
But I'm going to go off on a detailed tangent explaining the why anyways,
because I can, and this is something we all should be aware of, and
because I have another research project to procrastinate on. So if you're
at all interested, read on.
There are four general types of Intellectual Property (IP) law: trade
secret, trademark, patent, and copyright. Now, the only one that applies
here would be trademark law, but I am going to talk about them all,
because there are a ton of common misconceptions about them.
- Patent law protections are the hardest to get, involving an extensive
application, review and publishing process, and have the shortest terms,
being at most 20 years. Further, they only apply to scientific
inventions: such as a car engine carburetor or a metal refinement process.
Software has been patented, but because patents only apply to *design*,
not *implementation*, and because the idea must be novel and non-obvious,
they aren't USUALLY a terribly significant issue. If one comes up,
however, it's a nightmare to fight: see GNOME vs Rothschild for an
example.
- Trade secret laws can apply to any useful information, and don't need to
be registered (actually, they can't be). However, for protection to
apply, it needs to be, well, secret: extensive steps must be taken to
protect it. Coca-Cola's exact flavoring recipe would qualify. Microsoft's
precise source code probably would, but anything discovered via reverse-
engineering (including disassembling) wouldn't. Not a big issue, unless
you're in the habit of espionage.
- Copyright laws are the ones dealt with by free software the most. They
(theoretically) apply to any artistic work, which apparently includes
computer software, and (depending on the results of Oracle v. Google) the
design of an API. They last basically forever (okay, only a century), are
very far reaching, and are applied automatically. However, they only
apply to a large work: a bash one-liner might get protected, but a single
word certainly isn't. When we talk about licenses, this is usually what
we mean: most free licenses say nothing about granting rights to patents
(GPLv3 is the only one I can think of), and explicitly refuse to give
rights for trademarks (more on that in a sec).
- Trademark law regards the 'mark' you use to 'trade'. They don't require
registration to apply, and can apply to anything from a particular word or
phrase to a color[^1]. I'll talk a lot about it, because it's not as
clear cut as copyright, where any use of the material in anything not a
parody is probably forbidden. It is unique because it is directly
benefits consumers, by ensuring that they can trust their products.
Trademark law is what protects against knockoff safety googles being
marketed as the real thing. It's what would apply to the usage of names
from a movie.
[^1]: UPS has a trademark on the exact shade of brown used on their
delivery vans. Yes, that is a real thing, that they spent a lot of
money to get. Don't paint your delivery trucks brown.
First of all, a trademark can only be infringed if customers are confused.
Generally, that means that they are limited to a certain "field of
endeavor", as Paul Sutton says. Further, the two marks must be used in
the same area: so there can be two trademark-protected pizza shops with
the same name, provided they are a hundred or more miles apart. Most
marks that we really care about are global, so the 'field of endeavor'
defense is a lot more important. Here is one of the reasons we are safe
from lawsuits regarding the names: they aren't really associated with Toy
Story characters unless used in that context, and even then...
I should mention that *doesn't* apply if the trademark is so "well known"
that a customer might think they were still related. For instance, I
can't sell a "Nike" line of sofas, because even though Nike only shoes,
they have such a wide reach that a customer might think my sofas were
Nike's actual products, even given the radically different environment.
Now, if we replace "Nike" with, say, "New Balance", the protections go
down a lot. Not just because New Balance is a much smaller shoe brand,
and not as well-known, but because New Balance is a generic phrase.
Whereas "Nike" is a little-known Greek deity, "New Balance" is a pair of
common english words: it's a lot harder to show that they have been
associated with your brand exclusivly, since they are often used on their
own. The protection granted by a trademark is related to how unique and
arbitrary ("distinctive") it is: naming your app "Calendar" gives little
protection, "iCal" a fair bit, and "California" quite a
Re: debian names
Le lun. 9 nov. 2020 à 00:25, Paul Sutton a écrit : > On 08/11/2020 21:41, Jérémy Lal wrote: > > Using toy story names for debian releases surely isn't free from any > > disney/pixar license ? > > Or is it ? > > Given we have been using them for nearly 30 years (scary eh), I don't > think they are going to bother too much. > > I think trademarks only become an issue when the names get confused, > with another product, or a company is just in to bullying others over a > name. > > There was a company called Utube here (UK) (made tubes) that got sued by > youtube, and a pub, with a lord of the rings related name (was there > before the movies were made) that got sued by the people who made the > movies. > > Some companies are like that, they lack common sense. How do we know > that disney are not using Debian on their cluster things to render the > movies. > > Plus anyone goto disney world and other parks and get their pic taken > with a character while wearing a debian t-shirt, :) I haven't but maybe > people have. > Do you mean that if i coin "Mickey and Donald API" my software won't get troubles from the owners of those trademarks ? Considering how agressive american trademarks are defended, i wouldn't count on that assumption, ever. Jérémy > Paul > > -- > Paul Sutton, Cert ContSci (Open) > https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/ > OpenPGP : 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99 > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-sutton-5737171b8/ >
Re: debian names
On 08/11/2020 21:41, Jérémy Lal wrote: Using toy story names for debian releases surely isn't free from any disney/pixar license ? Or is it ? Given we have been using them for nearly 30 years (scary eh), I don't think they are going to bother too much. I think trademarks only become an issue when the names get confused, with another product, or a company is just in to bullying others over a name. There was a company called Utube here (UK) (made tubes) that got sued by youtube, and a pub, with a lord of the rings related name (was there before the movies were made) that got sued by the people who made the movies. Some companies are like that, they lack common sense. How do we know that disney are not using Debian on their cluster things to render the movies. Plus anyone goto disney world and other parks and get their pic taken with a character while wearing a debian t-shirt, :) I haven't but maybe people have. Paul -- Paul Sutton, Cert ContSci (Open) https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/ OpenPGP : 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99 https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-sutton-5737171b8/ OpenPGP_0x8EA91B51E27E3D99.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: debian names
Quoting Jérémy Lal (2020-11-08 22:41:56) > Using toy story names for debian releases surely isn't free from any > disney/pixar license ? > Or is it ? Possibly (but not certainly) those names are registered trademarks, which means the names would be protected for use within a certain domain (so as to avoid confusion). I would consider it highly unlikely that (Disney would claim and a court would agree with them, that) Pixar customers could confuse some Pixar products with a Debian release. ...but I am not a lawyer - and if you want a lawyer's opinion then I believe the proper approach is to (not publicly on this list but discretely) ask Debian Leader to consult some lawyer. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
debian names
Using toy story names for debian releases surely isn't free from any disney/pixar license ? Or is it ?
