[j1nx]

Yeah, I think it is crazily contradicting as well.

Anyway; Wordpress appears todo it for a while now, so will have a look at their business cases.

As I see it now;
- Rename it.
- Maintain the copyright of the files
- Do not use kodi images, logos, etc.
http://wptavern.com/the-gpl-license-does...trademarks

But is still looks very silly to say;

you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

While then forbid to use the name.


It is good that they actively need to protect the trademark, otherwise they loose it and it becomes common good again. Wish them luck with that, don't think they can keep up with it for long.

[Robotica]

Both XBMC Foundation and Wordpress are represented by SFLC. My guess is that they are trying to find a way to gain control over distribution via trademarks while with copyleft licenses this simply isn't possible. Using contract law-like structures within trademarks to do this seems really stupid since it breaks GPL while distribution still isn't controlled.

They also claim Addons have to be GPL (in the case of Wordpress) which I also think is silly. For XBMC this would mean that all illegal addons are non-derived and thus XBMC is always responsible. But this discussion was only in Worpress camp with no mention to XBMC. I wonder what their statement about this is. But if they speak about it, they either support Wordpress or XBMC: Wordpress wants controll all over it's ecosystem and XBMC doesn't want to be liable for facilitating copyright infringements, breaking patent law or breaking contract law (TOS, EULA of online services) via Addons.

Seem like a tough choice for SFLC.

[Kib]

You can redistribute the code, under any name but ours. The logo images are not under GPL, and the name is trademarked. You can't trade using our name unless you comply to our terms.

[j1nx]

https://www.boip.int/wps/portal/site/reg...DQSEhL2Vu/

Doesn't look like that for the EU, Benelux or Netherlands.


But what do you want to accomplish with it.

Say you are "RHEL" and I am "CentOS"

All I need to do is grab your code, rename to for instance "Cood-E TV" and release without any further modifications. Considering the fact that honestly the amount of users not willing to pay for things is way bigger than the once that do. All it accomplish is have a select group of nerd play with it under the name "KODI", the rest plays with "Cood-E TV"

Is that really what you want to happen?

[Robotica]

https://www.boip.int/wps/portal/site/reg...DQSEhL2Vu/

Doesn't look like that for the EU, Benelux or Netherlands.

....cut...

Then this is a non-discussion. But even when registered all over the world, distribution cannot be controlled; just the brand. So in your case, as simple name-change would suffice.

[Robotica]

You can redistribute the code, under any name but ours. The logo images are not under GPL, and the name is trademarked. You can't trade using our name unless you comply to our terms.

True, except for contract-like terms related to code or it's distribution. Those are even forbidden per GPL.

[Ned Scott]

But imagine XBMC Foundation having a certification process. For what purpose and what value would be created? As long as the Foundation isn't distributing Kodi, I don't see it.

Both XBMC Foundation and Wordpress are represented by SFLC. My guess is that they are trying to find a way to gain control over distribution via trademarks while with copyleft licenses this simply isn't possible. Using contract law-like structures within trademarks to do this seems really stupid since it breaks GPL while distribution still isn't controlled.

I've been helping to push a certification process for a while now. We're getting a lot of details down and it will soon be a reality. My own personal purpose for this is to protect the Kodi brand and give a reasonable incentive to venders to not associate us with piracy add-ons. All the venders are looking for a way to stand out from each other, so what better way than a simple process that simply says "this box meets this and that, and only has vanilla Kodi". Even the people who like to pirate media don't like the boated pre-installed versions, or the broken firmware that makes things hard to use and sometimes makes it even hard to install official Kodi versions.

What value would this bring?

We sit and wonder why it's so hard to get on the Android app store for Fire TV? I can't say for sure, but being associated with pirate streaming, instead of being seen as a neutral video player, probably doesn't help us. Being able to tell our families the name of the project we work on without them assuming we're helping people pirate movies is another nice bonus. Life isn't fair, and even if it's not our fault that other people misunderstand things, we still have to deal with the shit that happens because of misunderstandings.

We're not trying to control the code. Only the name "Kodi". We don't own the code. It's the same thing back when I was an active editor at Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation will be the first to tell you that they do not own any content. They hold no copyright over the content of Wikipedia. However, they do defend their brand, keep it out of the mud, so they can keep doing good things.

You might not think there is value in that, and maybe we're the ones who are crazy and think such a task is worthwhile. We're not selling out, we're not trying to control other people's usage of the code, we're just trying to protect our name.

[Ned Scott]

You are right. I will just call it "J1nxOS" and somewhere in small letters mention it is actually XBMC/Kodi and linking to github

Now you're getting it. You don't even have to put it in small letters. Trademark law doesn't say you can't mention the name "Kodi". It's more about how you market the brand and how it is associated with your actions. In theory, certain statements like "this uses Kodi" could be used as long as it doesn't imply various things. Think of trademark law as a form of identity theft protection for groups, companies, products, services, and such. It's not a ban on using terms, it's more of a ban on pretending to be someone you're not or implying things that hurt another group.

Another way to think about it, imagine if people were free to lie about what copyright license they use. Let's say I decide to make my own copyright license and call it GPL, even though another group is already using that. It's misleading, it's pretending to be something it's not. Or let's say I implied that the Free Software Foundation endorsed a project I was working on, in order to boost sales. Trademark protects such things. Even things that are not intentionally deceptive, but end up having that effect, are protected against.

It is good that they actively need to protect the trademark, otherwise they loose it and it becomes common good again. Wish them luck with that, don't think they can keep up with it for long.

Several non profit open source software groups have done this for decades. See Wikipedia:List of trademarked open-source software (wiki)

But what do you want to accomplish with it.

Say you are "RHEL" and I am "CentOS"

All I need to do is grab your code, rename to for instance "Cood-E TV" and release without any further modifications. Considering the fact that honestly the amount of users not willing to pay for things is way bigger than the once that do. All it accomplish is have a select group of nerd play with it under the name "KODI", the rest plays with "Cood-E TV"

Is that really what you want to happen?

YES. That's what we want. Maybe not that exact example, because an argument could be made there about confusion still (in theory, not saying I would), but same basic idea if you used another name. We only want what we work on to use the name "Kodi", even if that means that no one knows what the hell Kodi is. It projects the project, allows us to keep working on things with far less issues, end users are still allowed to do what they want, venders can do what they want, the code is still open source and free, everybody wins. That's not a bad thing. That's a very very good thing.

It's a strange idea, I know. I didn't think it sounded like a good idea when I first heard about it years ago, when I first joined Team XBMC (as it was called at the time). However, the more you think about it, the more it makes sense. Kodi is a neutral ground (in multiple context, not just "piracy"), where anyone is welcome. Whatever you do after that, we don't care, but please don't confuse things with the name because it is important that we remain a neutral project.

[j1nx]

I get it Ned,

I have changed the home page, "how it works page" and the products pages. Altho in Dutch, could you check the home and how it works page?

http://j1nx.nl/
http://j1nx.nl/hoe-werkt-het/

Questions:
1) Am I allowed the use that "mede mogelijk gemaakt" and the logo at the home page?
2) At the how it works page; How is that first alinea? Does that do the job? (Maybe Kibje or Martijn could better check that one)

(I must admit, it feels very strange not give credit where credit is due)

[Ned Scott]

Well, you can still make "statements of fact" about where the software comes from and such. It's more about how things are presented and how users might interpret those statements. I'll leave this to the other guys though, since I can only see things in the context of Google Translate, and that doesn't always do so well with context ;)

[nickr]

we don't own the code

who does then? Someone[s] does. Does the foundation require contributors to assign their copyright to the foundation? I don't think they do. (Some open source projects do have this requirement)

If not then the individual contributors own the copyright in whatever original code they have contributed. Makes it complex to ever change any term in the licence.

[fritsch]

No one does need to do anything with the foundation. I find that funny, the talk about "the foundation". I think I never had any contact with "the foundation" nor signed any contract :-)

[Martijn]

we don't own the code

who does then? Someone[s] does. Does the foundation require contributors to assign their copyright to the foundation? I don't think they do. (Some open source projects do have this requirement)

If not then the individual contributors own the copyright in whatever original code they have contributed. Makes it complex to ever change any term in the licence.

No one needs to sign anything
Since we use github all you can see who contributed the code, hence code attribution is done that way
As such code is owned by all why ever contributed
Each contributes to a GPL2+ code and as such they agree to that license

[j1nx]

we don't own the code

who does then? Someone[s] does. Does the foundation require contributors to assign their copyright to the foundation? I don't think they do. (Some open source projects do have this requirement)

If not then the individual contributors own the copyright in whatever original code they have contributed. Makes it complex to ever change any term in the licence.

No one needs to sign anything
Since we use github all you can see who contributed the code, hence code attribution is done that way
As such code is owned by all why ever contributed
Each contributes to a GPL2+ code and as such they agree to that license

I think nickr means; If no specifiek entity is owning the code, it will be impossible to pursue any legal action as only the owner of the by copyright protected material can take legal actions. On the other hand, maybe because of all the "owners", anyone of them can take action.


But that all is theoretical anyway as no one will be pursueing legal actions, as it is worthless. (Not meant in a negative way)

[schumi2004]

********

In this regard, if (and I say if, because he is not doing it currently) DITis TV is providing the sources to it's customers when they ask for it, he is not;
- Breaking the GPL
- Breaking the TradeMark
- Breaking the law

That you don't like it or disagree with it is something else

Since when is he providing sources without any issues?
Still haven't heard positive comments about people getting the source without any hassle.
So I still think they DO break GPL!