Re: BigBlueButton for non-KDE stuff?
Let me say upfront that I don't know of a policy. However On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:03 AM Pau Garcia Quiles wrote: > Hello > > I was wondering if there is a policy or restriction to use meet.kde.org > > Why this question? > > Uyuni (https://www.uyuni-project.org/) is an open source systems > management solution, at the moment mostly driven by SUSE (because Uyuni is > the upstream for SUSE Manager). Uyuni is not associated with KDE, and only > loosely associated with openSUSE. > > We started Uyuni Community Hours a couple of months ago, to great success. > We were using GoToMeeting because that's what I had from SUSE but now we > would like to move to an open source conferencing tool and are looking for > a home. > > openSUSE offers Jitsi (meet.opensuse.org), which has the problem of not > allowing room reservations. > > KDE's BigBlueButton allows reservations but I was wondering if it's OK to > use meet.kde.org for non-KDE related discussion. > > -- > Pau Garcia Quiles > http://www.elpauer.org > Kubuntu asked the BBB team years ago if we could have a free account, which was generously offered. Why not try out their trial server at https://bigbluebutton.org/ and then either ask for a free account or set up the software on a server somewhere? It is free software, and the devels are very nice people. Valorie
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
Hi, Em quinta-feira, 9 de julho de 2020, às 14:18:58 -03, Nate Graham escreveu: > On 7/9/20 9:42 AM, Michael Reeves wrote: > > As current maintainer of kdiff3 I would oppose trade mark enforce ment. > > Unless we have clear proof this is an altered version. I am perpared to > > push out my own free download if noone in this community wants the job. > > That will end the current problem quite nicely. > > Thanks Michael! That seems like a good path forward. I do agree with Michael. And maybe there is a way take that software away from Microsoft Store. It includes a "Terms of transaction" document as "Additional terms". This part is interesting: === Terms Relating to the Sale of Products AND SERVICES to You 5. Geographic Availability. Product availability may vary depending on your region or device. In addition, there may be limits on where we can ship goods, or provide services or digital content. To complete your purchase, you may be required to have a valid billing and shipping address within the country or region of the Store where you are purchasing. 6. End Users Only. You must be an end user to purchase products from the Store. Resellers are not eligible to purchase. === As far as I know this is against GPL, because it restrict access and distribution of the software. And if we go a little more below we have this: === 12. Software Licenses and Use Rights. Software and other digital content made available through the Stores are licensed, not sold, to you. Applications downloaded directly from the Store are subject to the Standard Application License Terms (“SALT”) available at [https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/? linkid=838610=0x0809], unless different license terms are provided with the application (applications downloaded from the Office Store are not governed by the SALT and have separate license terms). Software licenses purchased at the Microsoft Retail Store are subject to the license agreement that accompanies the software, and you will be required to agree to the license agreement when you purchase, download and/or install the software. In addition, software and other digital content made available through the Store are subject to the usage rules located at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/? LinkId=723143. Any reproduction or redistribution of software or merchandise not in accordance with the relevant license terms, usage rules, and applicable law is expressly prohibited and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators risk prosecution to the maximum extent of the law. === Since the uploader didn't define a licence in software overview, it will be automatically licensed under this SALT (really a good name) terms. And this is a clear infringement of GPL. Wouldn't this be sufficient to help us? Best, Frederico -- Linux User #228171 Espaço digital: http://teia.bio.br Perfil Hubzilla: http://hub.vilarejo.pro.br/channel/aracnus "Liberdade, essa palavra que o sonho humano alimenta, que não há ninguém que explique e ninguém que não entenda." (Cecília Meireles) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On 2020-07-09 20:10, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: El jue., 9 de jul. de 2020 a la(s) 10:49, Christoph Cullmann (christ...@cullmann.io) escribió: There is no evidence that this upload contains any virus/miner/... And even for the GPL it is enough if he provides the sources on request and only to the customers that bought the app. That's not true: - If I buy the app and it includes the source code, I'm allowed to redistribute the binary, as long as I include the source code too (GPLv2 §3.a). - If it *doesn't* include the source code, then it has to include a written offer to provide the source code "to any third party" (GPLv2 §3.b), and I'm allowed to redistribute the binary as long as I include either the source code (§3.a), or pass along the offer for source code that I got from the seller (§3.c). If you download it from me and I include that offer, you can request the source from the seller, even if you didn't buy the app from them. Yes, that is all fine, but you see the point that one needs to buy it at least once to check that. It might not be me, you can do it and pass it to me and I can then request the stuff. If they fail to hand out the sources then, there is an issue. But as long as nobody buys it and any of the above isn't honored, there is no legal issue. Anyways, I am not sure if the GPL violation is at all a point here, I doubt they will not give out the sources, they just want to rip off the average Joe/Jane/.. app store customer that cares not at all to get the sources or doesn't investigate at all that he could get this for free. Greetings Christoph -- Ignorance is bliss... https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
El jue., 9 de jul. de 2020 a la(s) 10:49, Christoph Cullmann (christ...@cullmann.io) escribió: > There is no evidence that this upload contains any virus/miner/... > > And even for the GPL it is enough if he provides the sources on request > and only to the customers that bought the app. That's not true: - If I buy the app and it includes the source code, I'm allowed to redistribute the binary, as long as I include the source code too (GPLv2 §3.a). - If it *doesn't* include the source code, then it has to include a written offer to provide the source code "to any third party" (GPLv2 §3.b), and I'm allowed to redistribute the binary as long as I include either the source code (§3.a), or pass along the offer for source code that I got from the seller (§3.c). If you download it from me and I include that offer, you can request the source from the seller, even if you didn't buy the app from them. -- Nicolás
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On 7/9/20 9:42 AM, Michael Reeves wrote: As current maintainer of kdiff3 I would oppose trade mark enforce ment. Unless we have clear proof this is an altered version. I am perpared to push out my own free download if noone in this community wants the job. That will end the current problem quite nicely. Thanks Michael! That seems like a good path forward. Nate
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On 2020-07-09 17:42, Michael Reeves wrote: As current maintainer of kdiff3 I would oppose trade mark enforce ment. Unless we have clear proof this is an altered version. I am perpared to push out my own free download if noone in this community wants the job. That will end the current problem quite nicely. Hi, having the binary-factory.kde.org variant in the store would be great, if you can help with this, e.g. submission howto is on https://kate-editor.org/post/2019/2019-11-03-windows-store-submission-guide/ I can help with filling the stuff, if you provide a tested installer. Greetings Christoph On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 10:27 AM Jack wrote: On 7/9/20 9:48 AM, Christoph Cullmann wrote: On 2020-07-09 14:18, Jonathan Riddell wrote: On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 12:29, Christoph Cullmann wrote: You might be able to do that, but as soon as you start to try to keep people from using the names, the cost-free, bureaucracy-free and layer free zone ends. Sending an e-mail to the Microsoft store doesn't need to cost anything, and it would have more effect if there can be a claim of trademark. Claiming copyright infringement as discussed on this thread is also sensible but it does need more work and will need at least the cost of buying kdiff3 from their store. Hi, sending just a mail will for sure not be enough, as the license allows anybody to upload our stuff there. You can start to claim that the name is trademarked but then this will only work if the other party doesn't claim it is not or that we don't have a policy that forbids to upload something with that name + get money for it. I think the suggestion of a letter to Microsoft was about the potential copyright violation, not about trademark. They could confirm whether or not there is an offer of source code within the package without having to buy it. -- Ignorance is bliss... https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
As current maintainer of kdiff3 I would oppose trade mark enforce ment. Unless we have clear proof this is an altered version. I am perpared to push out my own free download if noone in this community wants the job. That will end the current problem quite nicely. On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 10:27 AM Jack wrote: > On 7/9/20 9:48 AM, Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > On 2020-07-09 14:18, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 12:29, Christoph Cullmann > >> wrote: > >> > >>> You might be able to do that, but as soon as you start to try to > >>> keep > >>> people > >>> from using the names, the cost-free, bureaucracy-free and layer free > >>> > >>> zone ends. > >> > >> Sending an e-mail to the Microsoft store doesn't need to cost > >> anything, and it would have more effect if there can be a claim of > >> trademark. Claiming copyright infringement as discussed on this > >> thread is also sensible but it does need more work and will need at > >> least the cost of buying kdiff3 from their store. > > > > Hi, > > > > sending just a mail will for sure not be enough, as the license allows > > anybody to upload our stuff there. > > > > You can start to claim that the name is trademarked but then this will > > only work if the other party doesn't claim it is not or that we don't > > have > > a policy that forbids to upload something with that name + get money > > for it. > I think the suggestion of a letter to Microsoft was about the potential > copyright violation, not about trademark. They could confirm whether or > not there is an offer of source code within the package without having > to buy it. >
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On 2020-07-09 14:18, Jonathan Riddell wrote: On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 12:29, Christoph Cullmann wrote: You might be able to do that, but as soon as you start to try to keep people from using the names, the cost-free, bureaucracy-free and layer free zone ends. Sending an e-mail to the Microsoft store doesn't need to cost anything, and it would have more effect if there can be a claim of trademark. Claiming copyright infringement as discussed on this thread is also sensible but it does need more work and will need at least the cost of buying kdiff3 from their store. Hi, sending just a mail will for sure not be enough, as the license allows anybody to upload our stuff there. You can start to claim that the name is trademarked but then this will only work if the other party doesn't claim it is not or that we don't have a policy that forbids to upload something with that name + get money for it. There is no evidence that this upload contains any virus/miner/... And even for the GPL it is enough if he provides the sources on request and only to the customers that bought the app. I really don't think we should start this. Why? Nobody has given any reason against it so far. Because this starts to create a threatening atmosphere. I am allowed to package e.g. Kate (TM)? Must I rename it? What are the conditions? Might they change? Can I sell it? e.g. can I sell a DVD with a distro with that stuff on it? We would need to draft some TM use policy, too. Yeah we'd need to write some simple policy that would allow normal uses like Linux distros and package archives, but they're not trading using our app names for the most part so it's not a big issue. But there it starts. What are the conditions? Is it ok to have e.g. "Kate" on some website of your distro and sell the distro? But it is bad to e.g. have "Kate" in the name of an application when you sell that? I really think this only produces both a bad taste about if our stuff is really free to use and more work than needed. If somebody uploads trojans/... to the MS store, that is MS's problem, they review/scan the stuff there. If we know that there are such things inside a package, one can inform them even without any trademark/name/... issue. If people upload our stuff and make money with it, be it so, that's their right granted by our license. One can check if they provide the sources after you buy it and request it, but I won't start to invest work to do such stuff. And I would not expect the e.V. to waste resources on such endeavors. Greetings Christoph -- Ignorance is bliss... https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 12:29, Christoph Cullmann wrote: > You might be able to do that, but as soon as you start to try to keep > people > from using the names, the cost-free, bureaucracy-free and layer free > zone ends. > Sending an e-mail to the Microsoft store doesn't need to cost anything, and it would have more effect if there can be a claim of trademark. Claiming copyright infringement as discussed on this thread is also sensible but it does need more work and will need at least the cost of buying kdiff3 from their store. > I really don't think we should start this. > Why? Nobody has given any reason against it so far. > We would need to draft some TM use policy, too. > Yeah we'd need to write some simple policy that would allow normal uses like Linux distros and package archives, but they're not trading using our app names for the most part so it's not a big issue. > Better promote our own offerings better and be done > I'm all for this as well of course :) Jonathan
BigBlueButton for non-KDE stuff?
Hello I was wondering if there is a policy or restriction to use meet.kde.org Why this question? Uyuni (https://www.uyuni-project.org/) is an open source systems management solution, at the moment mostly driven by SUSE (because Uyuni is the upstream for SUSE Manager). Uyuni is not associated with KDE, and only loosely associated with openSUSE. We started Uyuni Community Hours a couple of months ago, to great success. We were using GoToMeeting because that's what I had from SUSE but now we would like to move to an open source conferencing tool and are looking for a home. openSUSE offers Jitsi (meet.opensuse.org), which has the problem of not allowing room reservations. KDE's BigBlueButton allows reservations but I was wondering if it's OK to use meet.kde.org for non-KDE related discussion. -- Pau Garcia Quiles http://www.elpauer.org
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On 2020-07-09 13:14, Jonathan Riddell wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 17:51, Paul Brown wrote: Should we add ™ next to the app names? I don't think putting TM next to the name is enough, though. IANAL, so take the following with a grain of salt: in my experience (I had to register several names of magazines back in the day) you always have to go through some registry office or another to confer any validity to you brand name. It is not hard and it is not expensive, but it is a bit of a hassle. It is enough to put the TM symbol next to the names, this asserts an unregistered trademark and is cost-free, bureaucracy-free and applies internationally. You might be able to do that, but as soon as you start to try to keep people from using the names, the cost-free, bureaucracy-free and layer free zone ends. I really don't think we should start this. We would need to draft some TM use policy, too. e.g., would the normal distro be able to use the name? Or only if we like the package? Is it allowed for others to upload the stuff somewhere cost free? e.g. see the https://chocolatey.org/packages/kate package, is that ok? or not? Better promote our own offerings better and be done. (naturally only my personal opinion) Greetings Christoph -- Ignorance is bliss... https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 19:34, Martin Floeser wrote: > Am 2020-07-08 18:12, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > > Recently we've noticed some KDE apps ending up on the Microsoft Store > > uploaded by unknown third parties. Maybe to up some credit score for > > their developer account. Maybe to install bitcoin miners. We don't > > know the motivations. Since it's all free software the licence allows > > it. > > Honestly I don't think we should try to get software from Microsoft > Store based on trademark. As you already notice our license allows this. > And even more on Linux it's the normal way that someone else distributes > our software. Back in the days SuSE even sold our software. It's even > common that our distributors apply patches to our software. So we > shouldn't treat the Microsoft Store different to Linux distributions. > The difference is we understand the motivations of Linux distros and are happy to be part of that setup. We don't understand the motivations of the random people who put our software on third party app stores and it doesn't benefit us in any way and it likely detracts from us. Jonathan
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 17:51, Paul Brown wrote: > > Should we add ™ next to the app names? > > I don't think putting TM next to the name is enough, though. IANAL, so > take > the following with a grain of salt: in my experience (I had to register > several names of magazines back in the day) you always have to go through > some > registry office or another to confer any validity to you brand name. It is > not > hard and it is not expensive, but it is a bit of a hassle. > It is enough to put the TM symbol next to the names, this asserts an unregistered trademark and is cost-free, bureaucracy-free and applies internationally. Jonathan
Re: KDE Apps name trademarks
On 2020-07-09 01:23, Nate Graham wrote: On 7/8/20 4:27 PM, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: On Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2020 20:27:58 CEST Christoph Cullmann wrote: Otherwise we must keep in mind we are open source and yes, this is possible. (and perhaps promote the KDE e.V. uploaded stuff better) +1 IMO the most important thing here is to prevent someone else giving KDE a bad reputation by providing a low quality app. The best way to do that is to provide an official app - I think people will use that one if they have the opportunity. Yeah. Uploading these apps ourselves seems to be the obvious solution. This will also undercut any 3rd-party uploads that cost money, because who would pay money for a counterfeit version when the original thing straight from the authors is free? Yes, but that will need people that help with this. At the moment, Hannah, me, and a few others do that, but there is no real workforce to get more stuff uploaded at the moment. (I even didn't update e.g. filelight since last year or so, just Kate and Okular) For Kate and Okular I am happy with the current state, there are some open bug reports, but as far as I can see nothing really grave like "crashs the whole time" or "eats all my data". Still, it would be nice to reach out to more developers on Windows, not sure how that is done best, my blog posts did seem to have a very low impact. Btw., the internal store statistics show Kate will soon peek over the 50k acquisitions border, Okular is a bit over 40k. Greetings Christoph -- Ignorance is bliss... https://cullmann.io | https://kate-editor.org
