KDE Apps name trademarks

[Christoph Cullmann]

On 2020-07-09 14:18, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 12:29, Christoph Cullmann
> <christoph at cullmann.io> wrote:
> 
>> You might be able to do that, but as soon as you start to try to
>> keep
>> people
>> from using the names, the cost-free, bureaucracy-free and layer free
>> 
>> zone ends.
> 
> Sending an e-mail to the Microsoft store doesn't need to cost
> anything, and it would have more effect if there can be a claim of
> trademark.  Claiming copyright infringement as discussed on this
> thread is also sensible but it does need more work and will need at
> least the cost of buying kdiff3 from their store.

Hi,

sending just a mail will for sure not be enough, as the license allows
anybody to upload our stuff there.

You can start to claim that the name is trademarked but then this will
only work if the other party doesn't claim it is not or that we don't 
have
a policy that forbids to upload something with that name + get money for 
it.

There is no evidence that this upload contains any virus/miner/...

And even for the GPL it is enough if he provides the sources on request
and only to the customers that bought the app.

> 
>> I really don't think we should start this.
> 
> Why? Nobody has given any reason against it so far.

Because this starts to create a threatening atmosphere.

I am allowed to package e.g. Kate (TM)?
Must I rename it?
What are the conditions?
Might they change?
Can I sell it? e.g. can I sell a DVD with a distro with that stuff on 
it?

> 
>> We would need to draft some TM use policy, too.
> 
> Yeah we'd need to write some simple policy that would allow normal
> uses like Linux distros and package archives, but they're not trading
> using our app names for the most part so it's not a big issue.

But there it starts.
What are the conditions?
Is it ok to have e.g. "Kate" on some website of your distro and sell the 
distro?
But it is bad to e.g. have "Kate" in the name of an application when you 
sell that?

I really think this only produces both a bad taste about if our stuff is 
really free
to use and more work than needed.

If somebody uploads trojans/... to the MS store, that is MS's problem, 
they review/scan
the stuff there.

If we know that there are such things inside a package, one can inform 
them even without
any trademark/name/... issue.

If people upload our stuff and make money with it, be it so, that's 
their right granted
by our license. One can check if they provide the sources after you buy 
it and request it,
but I won't start to invest work to do such stuff.

And I would not expect the e.V. to waste resources on such endeavors.

Greetings
Christoph

-- 
Ignorance is bliss...
https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org