HyperWiki

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
en:philosophy:trademarks [2024/01/17 13:28]
throgh [Are there really no solutions?] 		en:philosophy:trademarks [2025/04/12 01:19] (current)
throgh
Line 12: Line 12:
   * free trademark (//eg. non imposition of permission for redistribution//)   * free trademark (//eg. non imposition of permission for redistribution//)
  
-Especially trademarked programming languages leaving no other option as to rebrand and indirect or direct fork them are here major issues. But also patented algorithms that make it impossible to recreate or modify them, leaving critical parts of a system only perhaps some very small number of possible ways to implement or even worse with no other concurrent option for interfaces, drivers or relevant parts. Examples of problematic projects are [[en:philosophy:rust_trademark|Rust]], [[en:philosophy:java_downfalls|Java / OpenJDK]] and [[en:philosophy:php_trademark|PHP]] named for programming languages.+Especially trademarked programming languages leaving no other option as to rebrand and indirect or direct fork them are here major issues. But also patented algorithms that make it impossible to recreate or modify them, leaving critical parts of a system only perhaps some very small number of possible ways to implement or even worse with no other concurrent option for interfaces, drivers or relevant parts. Examples of problematic projects are [[en:philosophy:rust_issues|Rust]], [[en:philosophy:java_downfalls|Java / OpenJDK]] and [[en:philosophy:php_trademark|PHP]] named for programming languages.
  
 We know about assumptions and statements it would be possible to rebrand for example Rust. But in fact this is beyond what is really needed and impossible for any user to do alone: All references, source-code, further needed documentation and more. Also to point out that projects like Debian asked for approval and permission to patch, as an example here for [[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006|Mozilla Firefox]]. But this was only approved for Debian, not any other system and possible derivates. We know about assumptions and statements it would be possible to rebrand for example Rust. But in fact this is beyond what is really needed and impossible for any user to do alone: All references, source-code, further needed documentation and more. Also to point out that projects like Debian asked for approval and permission to patch, as an example here for [[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006|Mozilla Firefox]]. But this was only approved for Debian, not any other system and possible derivates.
Line 41: Line 41:
 ===== Are there really no solutions? ===== ===== Are there really no solutions? =====
  
-As more than once underlined **full rebranding is no solution** for a small scaled project and team with a concrete focus. It is a complete fork in work, not a script, not a command. And it could be told multiple times that this would be somewhat possible, it stays an illusion. Even rebranding and reworking smaller applications can be a massive amount of work.+As more than once underlined **full rebranding for the system is no solution**. It is a complete fork in work, not a script, not a command. And it could be told multiple times that this would be somewhat possible, it stays an illusion. Even rebranding and reworking smaller applications can be a massive amount of work. We don't and can't take this work! 
 + 
 +Generic a fork is surely helping, when it includes also rebranding and changing the licensing to a really free, libre and permissive model. Relying just on top of projects to grant some rights without respecting all freedoms of the users and developers is not an option for Hyperbola. Others may see and handle that different!