BB
Ben Bucksch
Mon, Feb 11, 2019 11:37 PM
Jonathan Kamens via Maildev wrote on 07.02.19 12:44:
Given that we allow add-on authors to select the names and unique
identifiers of their add-ons, I think you're right that those are
trademarks
Jonathan,
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere
on some website, does not make it a trademark. That is simply not true.
It doesn't even make sense.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known
to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage
with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would
first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there
was no trademark registration.
What's the point in suing, if he never lost the project? We already
stipulated that the original owner stays owner, and if he comes back, he
can have his project back. That means that the trademark discussion is
entirely irrelevant to the proposal here.
We are only talking about people here that stopped caring, walked away
years ago, and do not even respond when asked, and had released
their software as Open-Source.
If we can't help users of such abandoned software, what good is
Open-Source for at all?
Ben
Jonathan Kamens via Maildev wrote on 07.02.19 12:44:
> Given that we allow add-on authors to select the names and unique
> identifiers of their add-ons, I think you're right that those are
> trademarks
Jonathan,
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere
on some website, does not make it a trademark. That is simply not true.
It doesn't even make sense.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known
to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage
with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would
first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there
was no trademark registration.
What's the point in suing, if he never lost the project? We already
stipulated that the original owner stays owner, and if he comes back, he
can have his project back. That means that the trademark discussion is
entirely irrelevant to the proposal here.
We are only talking about people here that stopped caring, walked away
years ago, *and* do not even respond when asked, *and* had released
their software as Open-Source.
If we can't help users of such abandoned software, what good is
Open-Source for at all?
Ben
JK
Jonathan Kamens
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 12:13 AM
Ben,
I don't object to your plan at all, I think it's a great idea.
I was only objecting to the claim that a trademark isn't a trademark unless it's registered.
Jik
On February 11, 2019 6:37:27 PM EST, Ben Bucksch ben.bucksch@beonex.com wrote:
Jonathan Kamens via Maildev wrote on 07.02.19 12:44:
Given that we allow add-on authors to select the names and unique
identifiers of their add-ons, I think you're right that those are
trademarks
Jonathan,
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere
on some website, does not make it a trademark. That is simply not true.
It doesn't even make sense.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly
known
to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage
with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would
first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though
there
was no trademark registration.
What's the point in suing, if he never lost the project? We already
stipulated that the original owner stays owner, and if he comes back,
he
can have his project back. That means that the trademark discussion is
entirely irrelevant to the proposal here.
We are only talking about people here that stopped caring, walked away
years ago, and do not even respond when asked, and had released
their software as Open-Source.
If we can't help users of such abandoned software, what good is
Open-Source for at all?
Ben
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Ben,
I don't object to your plan at all, I think it's a great idea.
I was only objecting to the claim that a trademark isn't a trademark unless it's registered.
Jik
On February 11, 2019 6:37:27 PM EST, Ben Bucksch <ben.bucksch@beonex.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Kamens via Maildev wrote on 07.02.19 12:44:
>> Given that we allow add-on authors to select the names and unique
>> identifiers of their add-ons, I think you're right that those are
>> trademarks
>
>Jonathan,
>
>Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere
>on some website, does not make it a trademark. That is simply not true.
>
>It doesn't even make sense.
>
>It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
>there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly
>known
>to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage
>with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would
>
>first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though
>there
>was no trademark registration.
>
>What's the point in suing, if he never lost the project? We already
>stipulated that the original owner stays owner, and if he comes back,
>he
>can have his project back. That means that the trademark discussion is
>entirely irrelevant to the proposal here.
>
>We are only talking about people here that stopped caring, walked away
>years ago, *and* do not even respond when asked, *and* had released
>their software as Open-Source.
>
>If we can't help users of such abandoned software, what good is
>Open-Source for at all?
>
>Ben
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Maildev mailing list
>Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
>http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
MM
Magnus Melin
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 8:41 AM
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere
on some website, does not make it a trademark.
Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued
in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent
being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you
would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly
known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news
coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original
owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark,
even though there was no trademark registration.
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want
to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to
take something over as their pet project in case the original author can
at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
-Magnus
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere
> on some website, does not make it a trademark.
Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued
in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent
being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you
would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
>
> It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
> there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly
> known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news
> coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original
> owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark,
> even though there was no trademark registration.
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want
to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to
take something over as their pet project in case the original author can
at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
-Magnus
HK
holger krekel
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 10:33 AM
Hi Magnus,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:41 +0200, Magnus Melin wrote:
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known
to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage
with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would
first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there
was no trademark registration.
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to
maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take
something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any
point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
Maybe it's interesting for you to know how we handled plugins and maintaining
them with https://pytest.org (a test runner i instigated and maintained for 10y) ...
its github organization is
https://github.com/pytest-dev/
and it hosts many popular plugins (out of many more plugins overall, https://pypi.org/search/?q=pytest)
that have been moved to the pytest-dev organization. If the maintainer of a hosted repository
stops caring any of the 100 organization members can commit/merge PRs or even release.
The getting-hosted practise is that a maintainer applies to the dev mailing list to get
a plugin repository moved to the org and that implies allowing collective ownership and
being added to the organization. Usually some people express they are in favor of moving it
before it happens.
the above model probably doesn't help dealing with the TB's unmaintained addons
but might help with arranging the future of addons ...
2cent'ly yours,
holger
Hi Magnus,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:41 +0200, Magnus Melin wrote:
> On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> >It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But
> >there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known
> >to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage
> >with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would
> >first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there
> >was no trademark registration.
>
> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
> something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to
> maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take
> something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any
> point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
Maybe it's interesting for you to know how we handled plugins and maintaining
them with https://pytest.org (a test runner i instigated and maintained for 10y) ...
its github organization is
https://github.com/pytest-dev/
and it hosts many popular plugins (out of many more plugins overall, https://pypi.org/search/?q=pytest)
that have been moved to the pytest-dev organization. If the maintainer of a hosted repository
stops caring any of the 100 organization members can commit/merge PRs or even release.
The getting-hosted practise is that a maintainer applies to the dev mailing list to get
a plugin repository moved to the org and that implies allowing collective ownership and
being added to the organization. Usually some people express they are in favor of moving it
before it happens.
the above model probably doesn't help dealing with the TB's unmaintained addons
but might help with arranging the future of addons ...
2cent'ly yours,
holger
PK
Philipp Kewisch
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 10:34 AM
Hey Folks,
trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well discussed on public lists.
What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that involves adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete, making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent from a mere update.
What I think would be acceptable is to:
- Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
- Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should require explicit consent from the original author.
We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review this way.
I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move for us, for developers, or users.
Philipp
On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi wrote:
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there was no trademark registration.
Hey Folks,
trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well discussed on public lists.
What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that involves adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete, making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent from a mere update.
What I think would be acceptable is to:
1) Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
2) Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should require explicit consent from the original author.
We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review this way.
I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move for us, for developers, or users.
Philipp
>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
>
> Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
>
> I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
>
>>
>> It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there was no trademark registration.
>
> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
>
> -Magnus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maildev mailing list
> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
T
Tanstaafl
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 5:07 PM
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want
to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to
take something over as their pet project in case the original author can
at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
I haven't seen anyone advocate for either of those positions.
A reasonable policy is all that is needed, taking into account all of
the potential issues.
I would argue that any Author that came back after a prolonged absence -
and after someone else had picked up their extension and did a lot of
work converting it from an old Legacy Addon to a WebExtension -
expecting to just 'take it back over', is exhibiting an extremely
unreasonable expectation, primarily because the code is no longer
theirs. It belongs (as much as open source code belongs to anyone) to
the person who (re)wrote it. At most in such cases, they could request
to be made a co-maintainer, but the person who did the heavy lifting
should by no means be able to be forced out.
On Tue Feb 12 2019 03:41:30 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Magnus
Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi> wrote:
> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
> something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want
> to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to
> take something over as their pet project in case the original author can
> at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
I haven't seen anyone advocate for either of those positions.
A reasonable policy is all that is needed, taking into account all of
the potential issues.
I would argue that any Author that came back after a prolonged absence -
and after someone else had picked up their extension and did a lot of
work converting it from an old Legacy Addon to a WebExtension -
expecting to just 'take it back over', is exhibiting an extremely
unreasonable expectation, primarily because the code is no longer
theirs. It belongs (as much as open source code belongs to anyone) to
the person who (re)wrote it. At most in such cases, they could request
to be made a co-maintainer, but the person who did the heavy lifting
should by no means be able to be forced out.
T
Tanstaafl
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 5:11 PM
The only problem with this view is, it would result in the vast majority
of abandoned Addons remaining abandoned.
IF there really is a serious legal objection to the more lenient methods
allowing someone to more easily take over an obviously abandoned Addon,
then at a minimum I'd like to see a formal way to fork one made available.
It would be much more problematic for Users I think, but if it is
necessary to avoid more serious legal issues, then so be it...
On Tue Feb 12 2019 05:34:25 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Philipp
Kewisch kewisch@thunderbird.net wrote:
Hey Folks,
trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so
trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner
as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best
we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best
we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even
if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well
discussed on public lists.
What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that
involves
adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a
recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete,
making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also
make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand
holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also
have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent
from a mere update.
What I think would be acceptable is to:
- Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
- Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should require explicit consent from the original author.
We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review this way.
I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move for us, for developers, or users.
Philipp
On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi wrote:
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there was no trademark registration.
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
-Magnus
The only problem with this view is, it would result in the vast majority
of abandoned Addons remaining abandoned.
IF there really is a serious legal objection to the more lenient methods
allowing someone to more easily take over an obviously abandoned Addon,
then at a minimum I'd like to see a formal way to fork one made available.
It would be much more problematic for Users I think, but if it is
necessary to avoid more serious legal issues, then so be it...
On Tue Feb 12 2019 05:34:25 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Philipp
Kewisch <kewisch@thunderbird.net> wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so
trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner
as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best
we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best
we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even
if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well
discussed on public lists.
>
> What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that
> involves
adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a
recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete,
making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also
make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand
holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also
have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent
from a mere update.
> What I think would be acceptable is to:
>
> 1) Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
> 2) Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
>
> For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should require explicit consent from the original author.
>
> We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review this way.
>
> I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move for us, for developers, or users.
>
> Philipp
>
>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>>> Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
>>
>> I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
>>
>>>
>>> It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there was no trademark registration.
>>
>> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
>>
>> -Magnus
PK
Philipp Kewisch
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 7:28 PM
Yes, this would mean less add-ons would be revived. It is always a trade-off, and I think this provides for good middle grounds and helps set clear user and developer expectations.
I would hate to have my add-on taken over because I forgot to reply to an email or was busy with life while the request was made.
What we can do in this approach is adjust the bar for what add-ons are blocked. I think we'll need more data on this, e.g of the top 250 add-ons, how many still work in tb60. If a high percentage are already covered, I don't think it is worth changing policy to be able to block more add-ons.
We can't save the whole long tail, and we need to focus our efforts based on the team size we have.
Philipp
On 12. Feb 2019, at 6:11 PM, Tanstaafl tanstaafl@libertytrek.org wrote:
The only problem with this view is, it would result in the vast majority
of abandoned Addons remaining abandoned.
IF there really is a serious legal objection to the more lenient methods
allowing someone to more easily take over an obviously abandoned Addon,
then at a minimum I'd like to see a formal way to fork one made available.
It would be much more problematic for Users I think, but if it is
necessary to avoid more serious legal issues, then so be it...
On Tue Feb 12 2019 05:34:25 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Philipp
Kewisch kewisch@thunderbird.net wrote:
Hey Folks,
trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so
trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner
as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best
we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best
we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even
if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well
discussed on public lists.
What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that
involves
adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a
recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete,
making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also
make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand
holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also
have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent
from a mere update.
What I think would be acceptable is to:
- Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
- Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should require explicit consent from the original author.
We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review this way.
I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move for us, for developers, or users.
Philipp
On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi wrote:
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there was no trademark registration.
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
-Magnus
Yes, this would mean less add-ons would be revived. It is always a trade-off, and I think this provides for good middle grounds and helps set clear user and developer expectations.
I would hate to have my add-on taken over because I forgot to reply to an email or was busy with life while the request was made.
What we can do in this approach is adjust the bar for what add-ons are blocked. I think we'll need more data on this, e.g of the top 250 add-ons, how many still work in tb60. If a high percentage are already covered, I don't think it is worth changing policy to be able to block more add-ons.
We can't save the whole long tail, and we need to focus our efforts based on the team size we have.
Philipp
> On 12. Feb 2019, at 6:11 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>
> The only problem with this view is, it would result in the vast majority
> of abandoned Addons remaining abandoned.
>
> IF there really is a serious legal objection to the more lenient methods
> allowing someone to more easily take over an obviously abandoned Addon,
> then at a minimum I'd like to see a formal way to fork one made available.
>
> It would be much more problematic for Users I think, but if it is
> necessary to avoid more serious legal issues, then so be it...
>
> On Tue Feb 12 2019 05:34:25 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Philipp
> Kewisch <kewisch@thunderbird.net> wrote:
>> Hey Folks,
>>
>> trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so
> trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner
> as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best
> we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best
> we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even
> if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well
> discussed on public lists.
>>
>> What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that
>> involves
> adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a
> recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete,
> making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also
> make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand
> holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also
> have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent
> from a mere update.
>
>> What I think would be acceptable is to:
>>
>> 1) Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
>> 2) Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
>>
>> For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should require explicit consent from the original author.
>>
>> We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review this way.
>>
>> I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move for us, for developers, or users.
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>>>> Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
>>>
>>> Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
>>>
>>> I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered. But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even though there was no trademark registration.
>>>
>>> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
>>>
>>> -Magnus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maildev mailing list
> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
N
neandr
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 8:25 PM
AFAIU all this discussion is about addons which have no ongoing
support/update/etc
One argument was it's all open source, so is it "free" to be used with
an updated technology (eg. WX) with a "new" addon offer?? This question
should be answered first.
Without legal restrictions about that, the second is a technical aspect.
It should be possible to use/fork a current state of an addon so another
developer could work with that "old" base and build a modern version of
that, a "new" one. The normal ATN processes would ensure all technical
requirements are OK.
Last point is the user. It should be possible -- for users set for
automatic update -- to notify about the situation with the "old" addon
and inform about the "new" version. As each addon has a unique ID with
that notification accepted, the "old" addon would be disabled and the
"new" addon would be installed with a new ID. Also, this process should
enable the user to go back to "old" one if the feature set of the "new"
would not met his expectation.
Open point here: how to handle the situation with users not set
automatic updates.
Am 12.02.19 um 18:07 schrieb Tanstaafl:
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want
to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to
take something over as their pet project in case the original author can
at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
I haven't seen anyone advocate for either of those positions.
A reasonable policy is all that is needed, taking into account all of
the potential issues.
I would argue that any Author that came back after a prolonged absence -
and after someone else had picked up their extension and did a lot of
work converting it from an old Legacy Addon to a WebExtension -
expecting to just 'take it back over', is exhibiting an extremely
unreasonable expectation, primarily because the code is no longer
theirs. It belongs (as much as open source code belongs to anyone) to
the person who (re)wrote it. At most in such cases, they could request
to be made a co-maintainer, but the person who did the heavy lifting
should by no means be able to be forced out.
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
AFAIU all this discussion is about addons which have no ongoing
support/update/etc
One argument was it's all open source, so is it "free" to be used with
an updated technology (eg. WX) with a "new" addon offer?? This question
should be answered first.
Without legal restrictions about that, the second is a technical aspect.
It should be possible to use/fork a current state of an addon so another
developer could work with that "old" base and build a modern version of
that, a "new" one. The normal ATN processes would ensure all technical
requirements are OK.
Last point is the user. It should be possible -- for users set for
automatic update -- to notify about the situation with the "old" addon
and inform about the "new" version. As each addon has a unique ID with
that notification accepted, the "old" addon would be disabled and the
"new" addon would be installed with a new ID. Also, this process should
enable the user to go back to "old" one if the feature set of the "new"
would not met his expectation.
Open point here: how to handle the situation with users not set
automatic updates.
Am 12.02.19 um 18:07 schrieb Tanstaafl:
> On Tue Feb 12 2019 03:41:30 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Magnus
> Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi> wrote:
>> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next to
>> something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to want
>> to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be motivated to
>> take something over as their pet project in case the original author can
>> at any point in the future come back and "claim the fame"?
> I haven't seen anyone advocate for either of those positions.
>
> A reasonable policy is all that is needed, taking into account all of
> the potential issues.
>
> I would argue that any Author that came back after a prolonged absence -
> and after someone else had picked up their extension and did a lot of
> work converting it from an old Legacy Addon to a WebExtension -
> expecting to just 'take it back over', is exhibiting an extremely
> unreasonable expectation, primarily because the code is no longer
> theirs. It belongs (as much as open source code belongs to anyone) to
> the person who (re)wrote it. At most in such cases, they could request
> to be made a co-maintainer, but the person who did the heavy lifting
> should by no means be able to be forced out.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maildev mailing list
> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
BB
Ben Bucksch
Tue, Feb 12, 2019 11:26 PM
I'm looking at it from an end user perspective. he just wants the functionality. if the add-on is no longer working with a new thunderbird version, he may not do the update. that's really bad for everybody.
to avoid that, the user should be explicitly informed that there is a replacement. a note on the add-on page on ATN is not sufficient. it needs to be displayed in whatever places thunderbird it is shown that the add-on is incompatible. next to that message, we should show the replacement add-on, in order to achieve the goal of a) being user friendly and b) encouraging users to update.
this can be shown in the add-ons page in thunderbird, and other places.
Ben
Am 12. Februar 2019 11:34:25 MEZ schrieb Philipp Kewisch kewisch@thunderbird.net:
Hey Folks,
trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so
trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner
as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best
we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best
we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even
if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well
discussed on public lists.
What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that involves
adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a
recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete,
making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also
make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand
holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also
have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent
from a mere update.
What I think would be acceptable is to:
- Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
- Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the
user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an
informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering
replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should
require explicit consent from the original author.
We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be
willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer
reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since
we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review
this way.
I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move
for us, for developers, or users.
Philipp
On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it
somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be
argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent
being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you
would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered.
But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly
known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news
coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original
owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even
though there was no trademark registration.
Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next
to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to
want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be
motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the
original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the
fame"?
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse the brevity.
I'm looking at it from an end user perspective. he just wants the functionality. if the add-on is no longer working with a new thunderbird version, he may not do the update. that's really bad for everybody.
to avoid that, the user should be explicitly informed that there is a replacement. a note on the add-on page on ATN is *not* sufficient. it needs to be displayed in whatever places thunderbird it is shown that the add-on is incompatible. next to that message, we should show the replacement add-on, in order to achieve the goal of a) being user friendly and b) encouraging users to update.
this can be shown in the add-ons page in thunderbird, and other places.
Ben
Am 12. Februar 2019 11:34:25 MEZ schrieb Philipp Kewisch <kewisch@thunderbird.net>:
>Hey Folks,
>
>trademarks on ATN are handled via the DMCA safe harbor agreement, so
>trademarks MUST NOT be checked, but can be filed by the trademark owner
>as a complaint and must then be removed. Regardless, I think it is best
>we keep the legal discussions out of this thread completely. It is best
>we come to a set of options and then seek legal advice. IANAL and even
>if some of you are, you probably know legal opinions are not well
>discussed on public lists.
>
>What I can tell you from my perspective is that anything that involves
>adding an author to an existing listing or replacing an add-on is a
>recipe for trouble. The new add-on would maybe not be feature complete,
>making the user unhappy. Or they might not like the UI. This could also
>make the original developer unhappy and it would end in a lot of hand
>holding and resolving disputes on our end. The new developer may also
>have different data collection policies, which would not be apparent
>from a mere update.
>
>What I think would be acceptable is to:
>
>1) Soft-block add-ons that are breaking Thunderbird functionality
>2) Offer hand-picked replacement add-ons for blocked add-ons. If the
>user wants these, they are redirected to the ATN page and can make an
>informed decision if they want to install the add-on.
>
>For (2) there may already be a system in place. As for offering
>replacements for add-ons not breaking Thunderbird I think this should
>require explicit consent from the original author.
>
>We could consider getting in touch with authors if they would be
>willing to have someone else continue maintenance using the reviewer
>reply functionality, but we need to make sure this is compliant since
>we can only send transactional messages pertaining to the add-on review
>this way.
>
>I don't think anything more automatic than this would be a good move
>for us, for developers, or users.
>
>Philipp
>
>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 9:41 AM, Magnus Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi>
>wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12-02-2019 01:37, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>>> Just because you chose a name for your app and registered it
>somewhere on some website, does not make it a trademark.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but something with say 50-100k users can probably be
>argued in some court, that it is widely known enough to be a trademark.
>>
>> I'd like to point out that as often with law, you really need prevent
>being exposed to legal arguments in the first place, no matter if you
>would likely win or lose. Too much of a mess and resource drain.
>>
>>>
>>> It's true that there can be a trademark without being registered.
>But there is a fairly high bar for that. The name needs to be commonly
>known to count as trademark without registration. For example, news
>coverage with wide audience. For a trademark violation, the original
>owner would first need to prove that there is in fact a trademark, even
>though there was no trademark registration.
>>
>> Somehow I doubt that people would be willing to put a check mark next
>to something saying "take my pet project at any time I happen not to
>want to maintain it". And then for the second part, who would be
>motivated to take something over as their pet project in case the
>original author can at any point in the future come back and "claim the
>fame"?
>>
>> -Magnus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maildev mailing list
>> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
>>
>http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Maildev mailing list
>Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
>http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse the brevity.
