AH
Andrei Hajdukewycz
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 7:09 AM
On 2019-06-02 4:58 p.m., Mark Rousell wrote:
On 28/05/2019 03:44, Christopher Leidigh wrote:
I would volunteer to work on an update for 68 assuming I was not the
only one. One way or another
we still really need some sort of blessing or at least clarity that
it's been abandoned for us to take it over.
I would just like to add that, unless Paolo gives you explicit
permission to take over his addon[1] then, as far as I can see, you
cannot legally take it over.
I don't think the name really matters. The only thing that matters is
preserving an update path for 68 users, and we can change the name and
still do that.
On 2019-06-02 4:58 p.m., Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 28/05/2019 03:44, Christopher Leidigh wrote:
>> I would volunteer to work on an update for 68 assuming I was not the
>> only one. One way or another
>>
>> we still really need some sort of blessing or at least clarity that
>> it's been abandoned for us to take it over.
>
> I would just like to add that, unless Paolo gives you explicit
> permission to take over his addon[1] then, as far as I can see, you
> cannot legally take it over.
I don't think the name really matters. The only thing that matters is
preserving an update path for 68 users, and we can change the name and
still do that.
T
Tanstaafl
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 2:42 PM
In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
appears to be abandoned does not mean that anyone is free to continue
developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
Author to get their permission to take it over.
On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
> In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
> appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to continue
> developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
> source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
Author to get their permission to take it over.
MR
Mark Rousell
Mon, Jun 3, 2019 4:07 PM
On 03/06/2019 08:09, Andrei Hajdukewycz wrote:
On 2019-06-02 4:58 p.m., Mark Rousell wrote:
On 28/05/2019 03:44, Christopher Leidigh wrote:
I would volunteer to work on an update for 68 assuming I was not the
only one. One way or another
we still really need some sort of blessing or at least clarity that
it's been abandoned for us to take it over.
I would just like to add that, unless Paolo gives you explicit
permission to take over his addon[1] then, as far as I can see, you
cannot legally take it over.
I don't think the name really matters. The only thing that matters is
preserving an update path for 68 users, and we can change the name and
still do that.
(a) Product names certainly do matter from a legal perspective, don't
they. They can be treated as trademarks, even if not formally registered
as such.
(b) Yes, changing the name whilst still providing an upgrade path is of
course highly desirable and is achievable either by replicating the
functionality in core or by coding a special upgrade case for a forked
addon.
You'll also note that I have previously suggested a generic way to
provide smooth addon upgrade paths which could cope with abandoned
addons and would not depend on name similarity.
--
Mark Rousell
On 03/06/2019 08:09, Andrei Hajdukewycz wrote:
> On 2019-06-02 4:58 p.m., Mark Rousell wrote:
>> On 28/05/2019 03:44, Christopher Leidigh wrote:
>>> I would volunteer to work on an update for 68 assuming I was not the
>>> only one. One way or another
>>>
>>> we still really need some sort of blessing or at least clarity that
>>> it's been abandoned for us to take it over.
>>
>> I would just like to add that, unless Paolo gives you explicit
>> permission to take over his addon[1] then, as far as I can see, you
>> cannot legally take it over.
>
> I don't think the name really matters. The only thing that matters is
> preserving an update path for 68 users, and we can change the name and
> still do that.
(a) Product names certainly do matter from a legal perspective, don't
they. They can be treated as trademarks, even if not formally registered
as such.
(b) Yes, changing the name whilst still providing an upgrade path is of
course highly desirable and is achievable either by replicating the
functionality in core or by coding a special upgrade case for a forked
addon.
You'll also note that I have previously suggested a generic way to
provide smooth addon upgrade paths which could cope with abandoned
addons and would not depend on name similarity.
--
Mark Rousell
JK
Jonathan Kamens
Tue, Jun 4, 2019 12:48 PM
Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons I
created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the add-on name
as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by trademark law is
perhaps an interesting legal question but probably not one that it would
be productive for this list to debate.
jik
On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
appears to be abandoned does not mean that anyone is free to continue
developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
Author to get their permission to take it over.
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons I
created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the add-on name
as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by trademark law is
perhaps an interesting legal question but probably not one that it would
be productive for this list to debate.
jik
On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
>> In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
>> appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to continue
>> developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
>> source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
> There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
> internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
>
> I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
> developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
> with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
> version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
>
> At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
> period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
> Author to get their permission to take it over.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maildev mailing list
> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
>
RS
Ryan Sipes
Tue, Jun 4, 2019 5:21 PM
This is a very interesting question, and I happen to agree that the name
should be changed to avoid legal liability.
So the name shall be changed and the users will be provided an upgrade
path to the fork with the new name.
It deserves a new name anyway if it is going to be maintained by new
authors.
Ryan Sipes
Community and Business Development Manager
Thunderbird https://thunderbird.net
On 6/3/19 10:07 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
On 03/06/2019 08:09, Andrei Hajdukewycz wrote:
On 2019-06-02 4:58 p.m., Mark Rousell wrote:
On 28/05/2019 03:44, Christopher Leidigh wrote:
I would volunteer to work on an update for 68 assuming I was not
the only one. One way or another
we still really need some sort of blessing or at least clarity that
it's been abandoned for us to take it over.
I would just like to add that, unless Paolo gives you explicit
permission to take over his addon[1] then, as far as I can see, you
cannot legally take it over.
I don't think the name really matters. The only thing that matters is
preserving an update path for 68 users, and we can change the name
and still do that.
(a) Product names certainly do matter from a legal perspective, don't
they. They can be treated as trademarks, even if not formally
registered as such.
(b) Yes, changing the name whilst still providing an upgrade path is
of course highly desirable and is achievable either by replicating the
functionality in core or by coding a special upgrade case for a forked
addon.
You'll also note that I have previously suggested a generic way to
provide smooth addon upgrade paths which could cope with abandoned
addons and would not depend on name similarity.
--
Mark Rousell
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
This is a very interesting question, and I happen to agree that the name
should be changed to avoid legal liability.
So the name shall be changed and the users will be provided an upgrade
path to the fork with the new name.
It deserves a new name anyway if it is going to be maintained by new
authors.
Ryan Sipes
Community and Business Development Manager
Thunderbird <https://thunderbird.net>
On 6/3/19 10:07 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 03/06/2019 08:09, Andrei Hajdukewycz wrote:
>> On 2019-06-02 4:58 p.m., Mark Rousell wrote:
>>> On 28/05/2019 03:44, Christopher Leidigh wrote:
>>>> I would volunteer to work on an update for 68 assuming I was not
>>>> the only one. One way or another
>>>>
>>>> we still really need some sort of blessing or at least clarity that
>>>> it's been abandoned for us to take it over.
>>>
>>> I would just like to add that, unless Paolo gives you explicit
>>> permission to take over his addon[1] then, as far as I can see, you
>>> cannot legally take it over.
>>
>> I don't think the name really matters. The only thing that matters is
>> preserving an update path for 68 users, and we can change the name
>> and still do that.
>
> (a) Product names certainly do matter from a legal perspective, don't
> they. They can be treated as trademarks, even if not formally
> registered as such.
>
> (b) Yes, changing the name whilst still providing an upgrade path is
> of course highly desirable and is achievable either by replicating the
> functionality in core or by coding a special upgrade case for a forked
> addon.
>
> You'll also note that I have previously suggested a generic way to
> provide smooth addon upgrade paths which could cope with abandoned
> addons and would not depend on name similarity.
>
>
> --
> Mark Rousell
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maildev mailing list
> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
BB
Ben Bucksch
Tue, Jun 4, 2019 9:04 PM
obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law. trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID, filenames or whatever.
trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because we want to replace the original.
but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to trademark law.
on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known. this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word or words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools" is very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as a trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law is not relevant here.
please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does actual harm.
e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev maildev@lists.thunderbird.net:
Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons I
created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the add-on
name
as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by trademark law is
perhaps an interesting legal question but probably not one that it
would
be productive for this list to debate.
jik
On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
appears to be abandoned does not mean that anyone is free to
developing it without permission from its author or rights holder.
source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
Author to get their permission to take it over.
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse the brevity.
obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law. trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID, filenames or whatever.
trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because we want to replace the original.
but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to trademark law.
on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known. this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word or words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools" is very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as a trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law is not relevant here.
please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does *actual* harm.
e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev <maildev@lists.thunderbird.net>:
>Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons I
>created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the add-on
>name
>as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by trademark law is
>perhaps an interesting legal question but probably not one that it
>would
>be productive for this list to debate.
>
> jik
>
>On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com>
>wrote:
>>> In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
>>> appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to
>continue
>>> developing it without permission from its author or rights holder.
>Open
>>> source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
>> There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
>> internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
>>
>> I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the
>Addon
>> developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
>> with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
>> version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
>>
>> At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
>> period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
>> Author to get their permission to take it over.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
MM
Magnus Melin
Wed, Jun 5, 2019 6:33 AM
I think whenever there is the potential legal conflict, it's preferable
just do avoid it where possible. Even if you win, it takes effort and
money. In this case there is also the ethical aspect.
I'd like to point out that for this particular add-on the instant
availability of a replacement is likely not a showstopper - it's by
nature not functionality you do every day or even every week. So even
without much special treatment, it seems users could find a new
"reloaded" version when they need it. But having functionality to
recommend replacements for abandoned add-ons could indeed be useful.
-Magnus
On 05-06-2019 00:04, Ben Bucksch wrote:
obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law.
trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID,
filenames or whatever.
trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the
presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only
with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product
with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a
counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because
we want to replace the original.
but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to
trademark law.
on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show
that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known.
this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word or
words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools" is
very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as a
trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't
see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law
is not relevant here.
please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal
claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does actual
harm.
e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning
add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev
maildev@lists.thunderbird.net:
Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons
I created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the
add-on name as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by
trademark law is perhaps an interesting legal question but
probably not one that it would be productive for this list to debate.
jik
On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell<mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to continue
developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
Author to get their permission to take it over.
_______________________________________________
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
I think whenever there is the potential legal conflict, it's preferable
just do avoid it where possible. Even if you win, it takes effort and
money. In this case there is also the ethical aspect.
I'd like to point out that for this particular add-on the instant
availability of a replacement is likely not a showstopper - it's by
nature not functionality you do every day or even every week. So even
without much special treatment, it seems users could find a new
"reloaded" version when they need it. But having functionality to
recommend replacements for abandoned add-ons could indeed be useful.
-Magnus
On 05-06-2019 00:04, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law.
> trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID,
> filenames or whatever.
>
> trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the
> presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only
> with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product
> with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a
> counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because
> we want to replace the original.
>
> but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to
> trademark law.
>
> on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show
> that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known.
> this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
>
> but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word or
> words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools" is
> very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as a
> trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't
> see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law
> is not relevant here.
>
> please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal
> claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does *actual*
> harm.
>
> e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning
> add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
>
> Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev
> <maildev@lists.thunderbird.net>:
>
> Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons
> I created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the
> add-on name as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by
> trademark law is perhaps an interesting legal question but
> probably not one that it would be productive for this list to debate.
>
> jik
>
> On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell<mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
>>> In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
>>> appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to continue
>>> developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
>>> source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
>> There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
>> internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
>>
>> I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
>> developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
>> with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
>> version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
>>
>> At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
>> period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
>> Author to get their permission to take it over.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maildev mailing list
> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
RS
Ryan Sipes
Wed, Jun 5, 2019 5:58 PM
Hello all,
I am exploring a path forward that avoids potential legal complications.
Thanks for the input, we'll be checking with lawyers on any action we
take in regards to taking over an add-on, using potentially trademarked
names, etc.
At current it looks like we will see if we can funnel users to a new
add-on that reproduces the functionality but has an alternative name and
is maintained by different authors. This will be based on a fork that is
being worked on here https://github.com/thundernest/import-export-tools.
Ryan Sipes
Community and Business Development Manager
Thunderbird https://thunderbird.net
On 6/5/19 12:33 AM, Magnus Melin wrote:
I think whenever there is the potential legal conflict, it's
preferable just do avoid it where possible. Even if you win, it takes
effort and money. In this case there is also the ethical aspect.
I'd like to point out that for this particular add-on the instant
availability of a replacement is likely not a showstopper - it's by
nature not functionality you do every day or even every week. So even
without much special treatment, it seems users could find a new
"reloaded" version when they need it. But having functionality to
recommend replacements for abandoned add-ons could indeed be useful.
-Magnus
On 05-06-2019 00:04, Ben Bucksch wrote:
obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law.
trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID,
filenames or whatever.
trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the
presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only
with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product
with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a
counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because
we want to replace the original.
but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to
trademark law.
on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show
that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known.
this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word
or words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools"
is very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as
a trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't
see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law
is not relevant here.
please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal
claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does
actual harm.
e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning
add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev
maildev@lists.thunderbird.net:
Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons
I created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the
add-on name as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by
trademark law is perhaps an interesting legal question but
probably not one that it would be productive for this list to debate.
jik
On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to continue
developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
Author to get their permission to take it over.
_______________________________________________
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net
Hello all,
I am exploring a path forward that avoids potential legal complications.
Thanks for the input, we'll be checking with lawyers on any action we
take in regards to taking over an add-on, using potentially trademarked
names, etc.
At current it looks like we will see if we can funnel users to a new
add-on that reproduces the functionality but has an alternative name and
is maintained by different authors. This will be based on a fork that is
being worked on here <https://github.com/thundernest/import-export-tools>.
Ryan Sipes
Community and Business Development Manager
Thunderbird <https://thunderbird.net>
On 6/5/19 12:33 AM, Magnus Melin wrote:
>
> I think whenever there is the potential legal conflict, it's
> preferable just do avoid it where possible. Even if you win, it takes
> effort and money. In this case there is also the ethical aspect.
>
> I'd like to point out that for this particular add-on the instant
> availability of a replacement is likely not a showstopper - it's by
> nature not functionality you do every day or even every week. So even
> without much special treatment, it seems users could find a new
> "reloaded" version when they need it. But having functionality to
> recommend replacements for abandoned add-ons could indeed be useful.
>
> -Magnus
>
> On 05-06-2019 00:04, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law.
>> trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID,
>> filenames or whatever.
>>
>> trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the
>> presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only
>> with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product
>> with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a
>> counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because
>> we want to replace the original.
>>
>> but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to
>> trademark law.
>>
>> on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show
>> that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known.
>> this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
>>
>> but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word
>> or words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools"
>> is very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as
>> a trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't
>> see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law
>> is not relevant here.
>>
>> please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal
>> claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does
>> *actual* harm.
>>
>> e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning
>> add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
>>
>> Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev
>> <maildev@lists.thunderbird.net>:
>>
>> Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons
>> I created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the
>> add-on name as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by
>> trademark law is perhaps an interesting legal question but
>> probably not one that it would be productive for this list to debate.
>>
>> jik
>>
>> On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
>>>> In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of software
>>>> appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to continue
>>>> developing it without permission from its author or rights holder. Open
>>>> source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
>>> There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of the
>>> internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
>>>
>>> I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not the Addon
>>> developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated update -
>>> with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a forked
>>> version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
>>>
>>> At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain grace
>>> period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the original
>>> Author to get their permission to take it over.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
BB
Ben Bucksch
Wed, Jun 5, 2019 8:00 PM
I agree. I'm just pointing out that there is no legal conflict at all here. nobody even made a trademark claim.
i guess what I'm saying is: there is also a cost of not doing something.
as for import/export tools, it's true that you don't need them every day. but if you need them, you really need them. at any given day, there will be plenty of users who do need them.
Am 5. Juni 2019 08:33:58 MESZ schrieb Magnus Melin mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi:
I think whenever there is the potential legal conflict, it's preferable
just do avoid it where possible. Even if you win, it takes effort and
money. In this case there is also the ethical aspect.
I'd like to point out that for this particular add-on the instant
availability of a replacement is likely not a showstopper - it's by
nature not functionality you do every day or even every week. So even
without much special treatment, it seems users could find a new
"reloaded" version when they need it. But having functionality to
recommend replacements for abandoned add-ons could indeed be useful.
-Magnus
On 05-06-2019 00:04, Ben Bucksch wrote:
obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law.
trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID,
filenames or whatever.
trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the
presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only
with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product
with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a
counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because
we want to replace the original.
but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to
trademark law.
on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show
that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known.
this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word
words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools" is
very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as a
trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't
see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law
is not relevant here.
please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal
claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does
harm.
e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning
add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev
maildev@lists.thunderbird.net:
Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons
I created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the
add-on name as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by
trademark law is perhaps an interesting legal question but
probably not one that it would be productive for this list to
jik
On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark
In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of
appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to
developing it without permission from its author or rights
source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of
internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not
developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated
with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a
version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain
period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the
Author to get their permission to take it over.
_______________________________________________
Maildev mailing list
Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse the brevity.
I agree. I'm just pointing out that there is no legal conflict *at all* here. nobody even made a trademark claim.
i guess what I'm saying is: there is also a cost of *not* doing something.
as for import/export tools, it's true that you don't need them every day. but if you need them, you really need them. at any given day, there will be plenty of users who do need them.
Am 5. Juni 2019 08:33:58 MESZ schrieb Magnus Melin <mkmelin+mozilla@iki.fi>:
>I think whenever there is the potential legal conflict, it's preferable
>
>just do avoid it where possible. Even if you win, it takes effort and
>money. In this case there is also the ethical aspect.
>
>I'd like to point out that for this particular add-on the instant
>availability of a replacement is likely not a showstopper - it's by
>nature not functionality you do every day or even every week. So even
>without much special treatment, it seems users could find a new
>"reloaded" version when they need it. But having functionality to
>recommend replacements for abandoned add-ons could indeed be useful.
>
> -Magnus
>
>On 05-06-2019 00:04, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>> obviously I'm not a lawyer, but i did check this question in the law.
>
>> trademark law is not at all concerned with technical names, ID,
>> filenames or whatever.
>>
>> trademark law is concerned with one and one point only: with the
>> presentation of a product to the user. and within this domain, only
>> with the question whether a customer/user would confuse your product
>> with the original. trademark law only protects that you cannot make a
>
>> counterfeit, nothing more. that is a relevant question here, because
>> we want to replace the original.
>>
>> but anything that the user cannot readily see is irrelevant to
>> trademark law.
>>
>> on top, unless you have a registered trademark, you also have to show
>
>> that in fact you have a trademark, e.g. due to being commonly known.
>> this could be the case here, given that this a is very popular.
>>
>> but there's an additional requirement: a trademark cannot be a word
>or
>> words that are descriptive of what it does. "Import/export tools" is
>> very descriptive and very generic and would likely be rejected as a
>> trademark, if anyone would make such a trademark claim. but i don't
>> see anybody who did. Given that there is no trademark, trademark law
>> is not relevant here.
>>
>> please be careful with raising such legal concerns. respecting legal
>> claims that the owner never did and could not even make, does
>*actual*
>> harm.
>>
>> e.g. in this case, users that are stranded with a non-functioning
>> add-on. let's solve real problems, not imaginary ones.
>>
>> Am 4. Juni 2019 14:48:22 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Kamens via Maildev
>> <maildev@lists.thunderbird.net>:
>>
>> Add-on IDs are not always assigned by Mozilla. All of the add-ons
>> I created, for example, have IDs that I created which have the
>> add-on name as part of the ID. Whether these IDs are protected by
>> trademark law is perhaps an interesting legal question but
>> probably not one that it would be productive for this list to
>debate.
>>
>> jik
>>
>> On 6/3/19 10:42 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2019, 7:58:09 PM, Mark
>Rousell<mark.rousell@signal100.com> wrote:
>>>> In general, regardless of licence, just because a piece of
>software
>>>> appears to be abandoned does *not* mean that anyone is free to
>continue
>>>> developing it without permission from its author or rights
>holder. Open
>>>> source licences just mean you can fork, not take over.
>>> There was a discussion recently about this where the subject of
>the
>>> internal Addon id that was assigned by Mozilla was mentioned.
>>>
>>> I would argue that this ID belongs to Mozilla/Thunderbird, not
>the Addon
>>> developer, so a way should be possible to allow an automated
>update -
>>> with appropriate notification/warnings to the end user - to a
>forked
>>> version using the forked Addon but the same Mozilla ID.
>>>
>>> At least that is what I would suggest, but only after a certain
>grace
>>> period where every reasonable effort is made to contact the
>original
>>> Author to get their permission to take it over.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
MH
Matt Harris
Thu, Jun 6, 2019 9:45 AM
On 03-Jun-19 4:34 PM, John Bieling wrote:
Hi,
what features of the MFFAB addon are its killer-features?
/The ability to import mbox files and recover mail from broken profiles.
The ability to export folders in a range of formats users want. Like
text, CSV HTM etc. Personally I fail to understand the desirability of
a lot of the formats offered. But the more useless ones for mail like
CSV and HTML ones are perhaps the most popular with users.
The ability to create a profile backup.
The ability to import the Google takeout files.
From the same author//;
/
- /Undelete/
- /More functions for addressbook/
- /Profile switch/
/
Just the functions that complete the application really and make it
useful really. Thunderbird is like lotus 123. We provide the car and
the caravan chassis, but it is up to the user to build the caravan.
Microsoft gained domination with an inferior product (Excel) because
they offered the caravan out of the box.
Matt
/
On 03-Jun-19 4:34 PM, John Bieling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what features of the MFFAB addon are its killer-features?
/The ability to import mbox files and recover mail from broken profiles.
The ability to export folders in a range of formats users want. Like
text, CSV HTM etc. Personally I fail to understand the desirability of
a lot of the formats offered. But the more useless ones for mail like
CSV and HTML ones are perhaps the most popular with users.
The ability to create a profile backup.
The ability to import the Google takeout files.
From the same author//;
/
* /Undelete/
* /More functions for addressbook/
* /Profile switch/
/
Just the functions that complete the application really and make it
useful really. Thunderbird is like lotus 123. We provide the car and
the caravan chassis, but it is up to the user to build the caravan.
Microsoft gained domination with an inferior product (Excel) because
they offered the caravan out of the box.
Matt
/
