I noticed the company who wanted to add their service directly into Owncast, and I said no, started releasing their own version of Owncast with their own changes in it to support this use case.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's kind of a fork, but it's really just another release of Owncast by somebody else. They're releasing something called Owncast with functionality and decisions that have nothing to do with the real Owncast. It specifically says stuff like "Owncast does X", and Owncast does not do X, and will never do X. Only their changes do X.
I fear this may confuse people. If something goes wrong with their version of the software, people are going to ask me for support, and might make the real Owncast look bad. But I don't know if this is wrong, or if this is completely acceptable. It's open source, and the name "Owncast" isn't owned by anybody, as Owncast is an open source project, not a company. So I guess they have the right to do whatever they want and call it Owncast.
But it feels wrong, and it seems like really bad things could come of this.
@gabek Huh. As it’s open source they absolutely can fork it and do whatever they feel but specifically calling it Owncast or calling out what they feel is Owncast’s shortcomings is shitty behaviour, even if not “legally” wrong. That in itself is enough reason to avoid them. Feels like bad faith.
@gabek If they want to fork #Owncast, they legally can, but they should not call it Owncast anymore. I know #Mastodon & #WordPress are open source as well, but they vigorously protect their trademarks to prevent this type of confusion.
If possible, I would encourage them to rename their fork something else. If they refuse, let us know which company it is so we can avoid doing business with them.
@darnell The trademark part is something I've never been able to figure out. I've asked around, but nobody has been able to answer it for me. Who owns a trademark for an open source project? Mastodon is a company, they own their trademark. Owncast is not a company, it's not a legal entity. It can't own anything.
@gabek@darnell Who owns the copyrights? Just glancing, it looks like you plus a bunch of contributors? In which case it's not unreasonable that you would own the trademark until you create an entity or get an entity to sponsor the project.
@williampietri@darnell Copyright with open source is pretty straightforward. But there's no equivalent for ownership of the name, the logo, the domains, etc etc etc unless you start a company around it. There must be a better answer, I just don't know what every other project does, and I've been asking for years and been unable to find an answer.
@gabek@darnell Sorry, I'm not following. You own the copyright to a bunch of the code. What's wrong with you owning the trademark for now on behalf of the project community?
@williampietri@darnell I don't own the copyright, the "Owncast contributors" / the project collectively owns the copyright of authored code. It's not a Gabe thing, it's an Owncast thing.
I don't want to personally, as an individual, be the sole legal owner. That's against the spirit of an open source project. I don't want to create a corporate entity, Owncast is not a corporation. And I don't understand the idea of a"sponsor", but if that means handing off/selling ownership of Owncast to a megacorp, well... that sounds horrible.
Thanks for sharing that article, I'm checking it out.
I think legally, each contributor owns their own contributions (unless they've signed paperwork to assign them elsewhere). So although I get that in spirit it's collective, looking at the contribution graphs, I think legally you own most of it, and other people can use your code because you've licensed it. So you could do the same with the trademark if you wanted.
As to sponsoring, I mean it in a different sense. Legal entities, especially not-for-profits, are hard to set up. So there are not-for-profits like Apache, the Linux Foundation, the Open Source Collective, and others. They legally hold on to things like copyrights, trademarks, and cash on behalf of the project communities. Perhaps you could find one that's right for your project and avoid the work of setting up an entity.
@williampietri Oh, like a fiscal sponsor!? Now I get what you mean, I thought you meant like a parent company. The Open Source Collective is Owncast's fiscal sponsor already. I'll reach out to them, thanks!
@IzzyOnDroid@darnell I completely understand the need for a trademark. But I completely do not understand who can hold the trademark for an open source project. Wordpress and Firefox are run by companies. Those companies hold those trademarks. Owncast is not a company.
@IzzyOnDroid@darnell A person absolutely should. But Owncast isn't a person, it's an open source project. A single person shouldn't hold all of its assets.
@gabek You can transfer ownership later, as was already pointed out. But as also was pointed out, you would need to have something in place in case "the other side" tries this. @darnell
@gabek@IzzyOnDroid@darnell but the question you asked was "who can hold a trademark", and the answer to that is clear? Any natural person or legal entity CAN hold a trademark
If what you meant was "who could hold a trademark for us so I don't have to and don't have to set up an entity", there are various non profits that do this for open source projects, such as SPI and the Software Freedom Conservancy
@vorlon@IzzyOnDroid@darnell No, the question is who holds trademarks for projects that are not legal entities such as open source projects? Now I'm getting answers, I've never heard of the SPI or the Software Freedom Conservancy before. This is exactly what I was looking for.
It's not that I don't want to set up an entity, it's it would be completely inappropriate to do so for a community run open source project. It's about doing the right thing. I'm not being lazy, this is much more difficult than if I just went and filled out the form for a trademark right now and owned it myself.
a trademark is an exclusive right to trade on a name (i.e. do business using it). Under US law (and I think UK law), certain exclusive trademark rights exist whenever you have an established mark that you're using for business. However, unless you REGISTER the trademark, you can have a hard time making a case in court.
if you're not doing business under the name, then no trademark exists; it's not intrinsic to the use of a name.
If MULTIPLE entities are trading on the name without a legal agreement governing its use, the mark is diluted and no one gets to claim exclusive rights.
the fact that a mark is already in use does not, in general, stop someone else from registering it. The trademark registration offices (in the US, the USPTO) are not incentivized to do a good job of searching for prior art before granting a trademark.
@gabek@IzzyOnDroid@darnell It is a lot more expensive to overturn an invalid mark in court than it is to defensively register one. If and only if you are concerned about such adverse registration does it make sense to register the mark and stash it with a trusted holding entity.
3/3
@vorlon@IzzyOnDroid@darnell I think that's the only answer that makes sense, and is likely the path other projects take as well (I'm guessing? But I've still been unable to get that answered). I know I need it registered, but the to who is the question. And "random 3rd party" seems to be the answer.
@gabek IANAL but perhaps that's where it makes sense to make the name legally 'official', whatever that means. The name 'Mastodon', for example, has a usage policy. https://joinmastodon.org/trademark
I find it deeply disgusting companies casually do that kind of stuff.
@lukem Mastodon is a company, though. That's the difference. The company holds the trademarks and IP. I have no equivalent of that. I could register it all to myself, but then it's not an open project anymore, it's something I, personally, own.
@gabek@lukem I think you will unfortunately need to register the trademark (probably before the other company tries to register it). And even if you take it out yourself right now, you could always transfer it to a nonprofit or some other entity later. Unfortunately defensive registration seems to be the way you unfortunately have to go.
@danyork@lukem That's where I've never been able to figure it out. How does an open source project own a trademark? I don't think it can. It has to become a company. Owncast isn't a company. And it's certainly not a non-profit. A non-profit is a very specific thing. I just don't have any answers.
@gabek@lukem In some cases, a nonprofit will be set up specifically to hold the trademarks, or that will be part of what it does. For instance, the Apache Software Foundation holds trademarks for its various open source projects: https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/list/
@gabek@lukem So you could, for instance, set up an “Owncast Foundation” that is a nonprofit and exists to hold the trademark on “Owncast” (and any others that make sense). If it became a charitable entity (ex. A 501(c)(3) in the USA), it could also be a way for people to make donations to your work.
It would take some effort to set up, but this could be one path to go.
@gabek@lukem Another approach is finding a nonprofit who might be the owner of the trademark on your behalf (but that means finding someone like the examples I mentioned earlier).
@danyork@lukem To create a real, legal, "nonprofit" is very difficult and expensive, however. If you're somebody taking in millions of dollars a year, then spending the money needed to have a board and full time financial oversight, and team running a foundation makes sense, I would assume. But I would never be able to do that, it's just me. It would cost way more than any donations that would come in. Trying to leverage another nonprofit, like the ones you mentioned, would be the way to go. Hopefully, I can find somebody to be helpful in this regard.
Add comment