I had a quick look and I couldn't see a reference to Rockbox there
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021, 17:42 Solomon Peachy via rockbox-dev, < rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote: > First, the background: > > There's a Chinese DAP maker advertsing Rockbox support for one of their > DAPs. Which is great, except.. they provide a binary build, and nothing > else. > > https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000068966351.html > > This is a variation of a platform I've seen before (STM32 + CPLD + > high-end DAC), but instead of the signature five-button control layout > and a small OLED screen they went with a large resisitive touch screen. > > Given the major limitations of this platform, they would have had do > some heavy hacking on our codebase to get this usable. > > This hacking may have some significant value, and could be a useful > foundation/reference for future ports. If nothing else it's a new CPU & > SoC family (STM32, ARM Cortex-M3/4/7), and that SoC family is something > I've personally wanted to port for a while. But that's moot since no > sources are provided. > > Now I know that given that it's a Chinese company with no US/EU presence > there's fuck-all I or anyone else here can directly do about GPL > violations, but this is something different -- Zishan is using the > rockbox name _for commercial purposes_, listing it as a feature in their > advertising copy, and at least some folks are purchasing it due to that. > > On one hand I'm glad to see that someone thinks this matters, but on the > other hand, if they're going to take our name in vain, they need to at > least respect the terms of our license! > > With a (US) trademark, we can go after US folks importing and reselling > these devices. On one hand it's not the resellers' fault, but on the > other hand, money talks, and pushback from folks buying in bulk is the > only way I can see to put some pressure on Zishan and others like it. > > So. That's the short summary. This leads to some questions, naturally: > > 1) Putting aside the question of ownership, is having a trademark a good > idea? Why or Why Not? (In other words, is this really a problem, > and even if it is, would a TM actually make things _worse_?) > > (Every other question assumes the answer is "yes") > > 2) Who should nominally own this trademark? > > This one's a doozey, and is the real reason behind this email. > > I'm in favor of a neutral third-party foundation (eg the SFC) but > that's not something that can happen quickly. Until then IMO it > should be the same folks who own the domain name, as "the Rockbox > name" is about the only actual asset of "the project" has. (ie every > contributor retains their own copyrights) > > 3) When/how should we assert this trademark, keeping in mind the > letter and spirit of our code license? (ie GPLv2+) > > At the very minimum, anyone using our name commercially [*] needs to > comply with the source requirements of the GPL. I'd prefer to take it > a step further and require them to get advance permission, unless > they are redistributing _unmodified_ versions. > > [*] "commercially" is a broad term, but in this context I consider it > to be selling something containing rockbox code and/or listing > rockbox in their promotional materials. > > 4) Who gets to decide what is or isn't acceptable? > > Ultimately it's up to the "Owner". But back in the day there was a > Rockbox Steering board. But even that implies a higher level of > active participation than we've had since.. back in the day. :D > > 5) How much will this cost? How do we pay for it? > > We've been relying on donations up to this point, and since we don't > pay for hosting we don't have meaningful ongoing costs, but we will > have to fork over money to both register a trademark and keep it > alive. Assuming nobody contests the filng, we're probably looking at > about $500 up front, and about $250 every 5-10 years to keep it. > > Keep in mind that the over-broad definition of "commercial" works in > our favor here, simply maintaining the web site (and ongoing > development) is sufficient to show that we are still using rockbox > "commercially" -- we don't actually have to be selling anything. > > I think it's reasonable to ask someone seeking to use our code > commercially to contribute _something_ monetarily but getting that > right will involve lawyers and cost even more money. > > 6) What about actual _enforcement_? > > Sending nastygram C&Ds is easy and cheap, and works surprisingly > well, but following that up with action (filing for an > injunction/import ban/etc) is likely to require actual lawyers and be > anything but cheap. IMO this is where being under a foundation like > the SFC really helps. > > 7) So why go through with any of this? > > In the short term, ultimately all I really care about is gaining a > little bit of leverage to help us obtain the complete corresponding > source code that the GPL requires. > > Looking down the line, should we ever produce our own hardware, IMO a > trademark is necessary because that implies a considerable monetary > investment. But even putting aside that pipe dream, what are we to do > if Zishan (or whomever) does more than distribute a hacky, buggy, > binary-only build of rockbox? What's to stop anyone from selling a > "Rockbox DAP" that doesn't actually contain any rockbox code? > > Maybe I'm overthinking this, but maybe not. Either way, I'd like to > hear everyone else's thoughts on this, especially from the original > Rockbox crew if they're still occasionally listening... > > BTW, I recommend reading this, and the comments: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/673677/ > > - Solomon > -- > Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org > (email&xmpp) > @pizza:shaftnet dot org (matrix) > High Springs, FL speachy (freenode) >
