Typically you can re-host the code base but you need to stick to the TM policies of the relevant projects.
The GPL is simply not a trademark license, it covers the code only.
The brand usage is simply not relevant for the functionality.
So you can easily use the code under the GPL terms, but not the branding.
You also don’t acquire the copyright. That also stays with the author.
Clicking the button might put you into trouble if a trademark owner decides to comes after you in a certain country. TM law differs a lot from country to country.
However, usually no one goes after source code repositories. Publishing executable software under a TM you don’t own will most certainly cause you trouble. TM owners are typically not very relaxed about you using their TM. In consequence they put up TM policies to make this fact very clear.
One of us is actually a professional software engineer while the other is a wayward architect with a penchant for squarular box design and a questionable grasp of basic law and logic.
It’s unenforceable, Vedder explicitly set the forking policy of the repo. The end.
Again, software code and trademark are two different things…
And licensing is another different thing. I guess you understand some code but for
sure you have very little clue about licensing and trademark law.
If you want to interpret the GPL as a trademark license than that is up to you.
I can promise you that this is not the case. The GPL is dealing with the issue of copyright.
Copyright law and trademark law are two very different things.
A trademark is a explicit right to use a mark in trade. A copyright is the right to offer copies of a work under certain terms, specified in the license. There is no requirement for you to attach the trademark and also no right to do so. You only receive a copyright for the code base of the “The Program, to any copyrightable work licensed under this License”. Trademarks are simply not copyrightable. Artwork, text, literature etc. are copyrightable. Trademarks are trademarks. You can license them with the use of a trademark license.
#### Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. #### TERMS AND CONDITIONS
##### 0. Definitions.
“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.
“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations
I fully understand this. You are not comprehending the basic point I’m making.
Let’s break a few things down, I’ll type slowly:
Since it’s clear you are speaking outside of your area of expertise, let’s settle this right now- I am a professional embedded systems engineer with over 20 years of experience writing code and working in software (and hardware) development. You do not have anywhere close to this level of experience and you are completely out of your element in your wayward interpretation of the licensing. These are facts.
Not actually true. As part of the aforementioned career credentials, I’ve worked with the Open Source Robotics Foundation/ROS, and as part of my daily job I have to ensure that code libraries and source used complies with the licenses it’s published under.
You are not the author or owner of VESC software. I know that’s a tough pill to swallow.
The author, Benjamin Vedder, has explicitly allowed forking of his GPL project on GitHub. There is an option to disallow this, but much to your chagrin this isn’t what the Author chose. Chew on that one for a minute.
Clearly, this is working as the author intended it. Your interpretation that the jurisdiction-limited trademark some how trumps the intentions and publishing actions of the author is dead wrong. Vedder says this is allowed, so your opinion doesn’t actually matter.
This is a laughable statement and shows how little you understand in the boots-on-ground enforcement of trademarks. The author is consciously allowing people to rehost the codebase on GitHub. There is no mention or restriction of trademark use claimed on the repository license:
You clearly have much different values than Vedder, given that his actions clearly don’t align with you claims.
As a friendly reminder- You are not the owner of VESC project, Frank. This is why you’re left emailing poorly constructed legal threats and not actually taking anyone to court. You are full of hot air.
If you think Vedder is stupid and wants everyone to use this trademarks without holding a license to do so, I can’t help you. He is very clear bout that and when you look at his website, you can actually find his TM policies on his website: Trademark Policies | VESC Project
If you can’t accept the fact that open source projects have trademarks and make use of them, then you should ask yourself why projects spend say 100K on trademarks. They all do it for a reason…
You can make use of the code base under the terms of the license, but you can’t publish his work using his trademark.
You absolutely can and should use Vedders trade marks when you distribute his software. His TM policies support this. Here are just two quotes from his policy page that show this, id encourage anyone to read the linked pages and find out for yourself and if you have any queries you can direct them to Ben directly here trademarks@vedder.se
The Mr.Vedder marks have been created and their use is expressly permitted for a specific purpose
Certain marks of Mr. Vedder have been created to enable you to communicate compatibility or interoperability of software or products
Together with his specific permission to distribute verbatim copies this is pretty clear that you can distribute copies of his software with his marks on it. In fact im sure he would be incredibly pissed off if you started distributing verbatim copies of his software with your own marks on it.
Do you want everyone to stop making competing products? Being this annoying isn’t going to accomplish anything other than making people dislike you.
Did you really think putting the trademark in the code and then say you can’t modify the code would work? You thought this kind of entrapment was a valid way to stop competition? Anyone with half a braincell could see what you’re trying to do here. It won’t work.
I feel bad for the cool dudes in the trampa HQ that you make look bad by association.
Those guys are the only reason I buy anything from you.
Yeah there’s a pretty clear case to be made that forking/rehosting a GPL project containing trademarks is simply fair use of said trademarks.
The Linux Foundation handles their trademarks exactly like this, by defining what is fair use vs not.
Ie: you can distribute code containing the trademark. Because it’s not the same as misusing the trademark.
You cannot use the trademark to try to misrepresent sponsorship or authorship. Pretty cut and dry for anyone that isn’t purposefully looking for stones to kick.
“The Linux Foundation Trademark Usage Guidelines” and following sections address this exactly.
The code is shared for people to study it, work with it, use it, modfy it etc. However, if someone wants to run a fork and offer executable software, then he should do it under his own branding, not Vedders branding. It is as simple as that. This way users can differentiate different sources and that is typically what users want and what publishers want. Teademarks serve the purpose that a source can clearly be identified.
Same goes for hardware. Third parties must use their own branding and stand in with their brand for their offer.
In consequence VESC-Tool is offered by Vedder under his brand and in the way he wishes it to be published. For that purpose he runs a website and offers his software on the app stores.
On this very website you can read the ethos page and trademark policies. These were thoughtfully written up to show what is possivle and what not.
If someone is not happy about the way Vedder handles his offer, he or she is free to run a fork under a different branding, maintain the fork and then allow everyone else to also offer the forked software under the same branding.
It is not up to someone else to decide how Vedder should handle his offer and TM policies.
Vedder once had a phone conversation with Lee and Queron about that matter. He was very clear about his position on that topic. Both know very well that Vedder is a very serious man!
That was an entirely different matter that doesn’t relate to this.
Your whole argument started with saying that Maker X cannot distribute the code, which as has been shown they absolutely can. Then you switched the argument to be oh you can distribute the code but you need to do so under your own marks, which again as shown under the very terms you reference is not correct.
Like I said earlier if anyone has any genuine queries I would encourage you to contact Ben directly. You will find he’s quite an approachable, logical and level headed guy.
Quote: Rules & Policies Applicable to Marks Owned by Mr. Vedder Do not use a logo of Mr. Vedder on the cover of a book or magazine, for software or hardware or any other product without written permission from Mr. Vedder.
Third party offers simply can’t be VESC-branded without approaching Vedder and asking for a license.
The GPL is not such license! The GPL only covers the copyrightable stuff, not the trademark.
Vedder can’t know if a software offer is 100% identical to the original offer without actually monitoring the offer and finally approving it. Users also can’t be sure about that fact. There might be differences.
Vedder can’t/should spend time on doing quality control for others. He also encourages people to donate to the project and sells the app on the play store. He has zero interest to spend his very precious time with customer confusion topics and quality control. The community also has no interest in that, since it is better for the community when Vedder spends his time on coding and doing product R&D.
In consequence the VESC branded software offer is kept in one place (VESC-Project) and others must link to that offer instead of offering downloads themselves. This way Vedder can control the quality output and fixes are also a lot easier to implement and role out to the user.
Any other solution would ultimately lead in one direction: There would be numerous VESC-Tools floating around, differing from each other. People would be confused where to go for a download and there would be no consistent quality. This is not acceptable for Vedder, especially if we talk about executable software for end users.
In consequence third parties must use their own branding for hw and software and maintain those offers themselves. Vesc is Vedder and directly from, or in cooperation with Vedder.
This is the reason why a TM was put in place and why TM policies were written up.
And this practice is very common thought the open source community.
Pretty much any major project has TMs and makes use of them.
