Re: GPL violation related to Org by priprietary app (was: Best android app)

[Jean Louis]

* Ihor Radchenko  [2022-10-25 10:30]:
> > These words cheat the reader by telling that it is "compatible"
> > something, while it is not editor mode, it is probably whole editor
> > and software without Emacs.
> 
> Are you saying that there is GPL violation of Org mode licence by this
> "EasyOrg" app?

I did not say that. Plagiarism is not always equal to license
violations. 

> If it is true, could you please provide links to legal basis on from
> GPL's and Swedish law's points of view?

In my opinion the term "Org Mode" is collective trademark:

Trademark FAQs | USPTO:
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs#type-browse-faqs_1934
valid only for US jurisdiction.

Trademarks need not be registered, especially when it is clear who was
first using it, there is no doubt that Org Mode is term used to
promote software and software is commercial subject.

Those who started using first "Org Mode", like author or whoever is
assigned to it, are free to tell to the website, to stop using it, or
demand part of their profits in Sweden.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: GPL violation related to Org by priprietary app (was: Best android app)

[Ihor Radchenko]

Jean Louis  writes:

>> If it is true, could you please provide links to legal basis on from
>> GPL's and Swedish law's points of view?
>
> In my opinion the term "Org Mode" is collective trademark:
>
> Trademark FAQs | USPTO:
> https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs#type-browse-faqs_1934
> valid only for US jurisdiction.
>
> Trademarks need not be registered, especially when it is clear who was
> first using it, there is no doubt that Org Mode is term used to
> promote software and software is commercial subject.
>
> Those who started using first "Org Mode", like author or whoever is
> assigned to it, are free to tell to the website, to stop using it, or
> demand part of their profits in Sweden.

If GPL is not violated I see no reason for current Org maintainers to
bother. I'd better focus on improving Org rather than trying to engage
into legal complexities.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

Re: GPL violation related to Org by priprietary app (was: Best android app)

[Tim Cross]

Ihor Radchenko  writes:

> Jean Louis  writes:
>
>>> If it is true, could you please provide links to legal basis on from
>>> GPL's and Swedish law's points of view?
>>
>> In my opinion the term "Org Mode" is collective trademark:
>>
>> Trademark FAQs | USPTO:
>> https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs#type-browse-faqs_1934
>> valid only for US jurisdiction.
>>
>> Trademarks need not be registered, especially when it is clear who was
>> first using it, there is no doubt that Org Mode is term used to
>> promote software and software is commercial subject.
>>
>> Those who started using first "Org Mode", like author or whoever is
>> assigned to it, are free to tell to the website, to stop using it, or
>> demand part of their profits in Sweden.
>
> If GPL is not violated I see no reason for current Org maintainers to
> bother. I'd better focus on improving Org rather than trying to engage
> into legal complexities.

Even if it was violated, this is not something the maintainers are
empowered to act on anyway. Org mode is part of Emacs and the FSF owns
the copyright. If there is any GPL violation, the FSF has a whole legal
team which deal with such matters. It certainly isn't something
maintainers or arm chair lawyers are able to address.

Also, based on my limited legal experience and past dealings with
trademarks, copyright and licenses, I don't think there has been either
a GPL license violation or a trade mark violation.  However, if someone
believes differently, they should refer the matter to the FSF legal
office.

Re: GPL violation related to Org by priprietary app (was: Best android app)

[tomas]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:12:46AM +1100, Tim Cross wrote:

[...]

> Even if it was violated, this is not something the maintainers are
> empowered to act on anyway [...]

This depends perhaps on what one understands by "act on". If that
means "go to court" you are, of course, right. If that means just
"make aware FSF legal of a possible violation", then the question
here boils just down to "do we have enough confidence to justify
annoying FSF legal with this?

> Also, based on my limited legal experience and past dealings with
> trademarks, copyright and licenses, I don't think there has been either
> a GPL license violation or a trade mark violation.  However, if someone
> believes differently, they should refer the matter to the FSF legal
> office.

Exactly.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature