“After a long and controversial discussion with the project admins we’ve agreed on guidelines for creating a 3rd-party Haiku-based distribution. In brief, other distributions may not use the word ‘Haiku’ in their name and we will provide a ‘Haiku Compatible’ logo for distributions that comply to a short list of rules that ensure binary and source compatibility. Please read the detailed guidelines for further information.”
… well, apparently it is not quite open. Is there any way for them to legally enforce this? Or are these just nice regulations that don’t have any impact at all? (Ok, apart from the logo which seems to be their trademark).
Ever heard of “copyright”?
It may sound a bit too strict (especially the prohibition on the name), but other than that, I think it stays within the borders of common sense. As I understand, they are talking only about “Haiku distributions” here, and not a modification of the core system (which the Haiku license allows).
“Ever heard of “copyright”?”
Yes, and it has nothing to do with this. This is about the Haiku trademark and associated logos.
Since Haiku is MIT licensed it is not possible to control exactly how a distribution is out together but it is still possible to control the use of the Haiku trademark and logos.
“Yes, and it has nothing to do with this. This is about the Haiku trademark and associated logos.”
Seems that Haiku Inc. doesn’t have _registered_ trademarks in US and probably in other countries, so they can do nothing IMHO.
Edited 2007-05-16 06:17
“Seems that Haiku Inc. doesn’t have _registered_ trademarks in US and probably in other countries”
Trademarks do not need to be registered.
>> “Seems that Haiku Inc. doesn’t have _registered_
>> trademarks in US and probably in other countries”
>
> Trademarks do not need to be registered.
Indeed, trademarks not need to be registered. However, if they do not actively defend them they will lose the rights to them. So this is a smart move on their part. This is why Stove, Hoover, Selotape, Kleenex and Bandaid lost their trademarks (or at least, lost the right to sue willy-nilly for infringement in some of those cases.) Also why Kellogs can’t sue people for selling “Corn Flakes”, but why “Coco Pops” have to be called something else by other manufacturers in the UK.
Edited 2007-05-16 08:13
Well, since Haiku will be released under the MIT licence terms (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php for more details) I think it can be considered fairly open.
AFAIK, these guidelines were made to make sure that the Haiku name and logo are used correctly, and to prevent future users from having to choose between Haiku, GNU/Haiku, FreeHaiku, NetHaiku, OpenHaiku, etc.
You can do with the Haiku source pretty much whatever you want, just make sure that people can identify your work as a separate project, to avoid confusion.
It’s not that bad IMHO…
Exactly. We want to make it easy for users to find the official distribution and we don’t want them to get lost in the “distributions wood”. Those who want choice can still search for alternative Haiku-based distributions, of course. Also, those who are compatible can at least associate themselves with Haiku using the “Haiku Compatible” logo which we’ll release at some later point. It would definitely make no sense to have “Johnboy’s Haiku Distro” if it were incompatible with Haiku (OTOH, Linux has no such rules).
Another point is that what other distributions do should have no negative impact on Haiku. If someone creates a messy distro we don’t want people to think that Haiku is bad, too.
BTW, what we do is nothing special. Compare this to any important open-source project and I’m sure you won’t find any policy that allows free use of their trademarks.
It would definitely make no sense to have “Johnboy’s Haiku Distro” if it were incompatible with Haiku
But these guidelines will not permit calling a distro “Johnboy’s Haiku Distro” – even if it is perfectly compatible with Haiku OS.
“Johnboy’s OS” (“It’s Haiku Compatible!!!”) can be a bit confusing. Linux is compatible with Unix, yet it’s not Unix.
Having many haiku distros with “Haiku” in their names is not a bad thing as long as they fit the compatibility guidelines. It will be less confusing to the user and it will make the Haiku name more prominent.
No, Linux is not. Linux is *partially* compatible at best with the SUS/POSIX specifications. It is not fully compatible though and in more than just a few things.
I believe those are good general guidelines to follow.
Official Haiku is going to release their version of the OS ( Haiku OS ). Distinction between Official Haiku OS & other distros is necessary. People are free to use other distros, but should know which one is the *real* HAIKU ( official version ) – not get confused.
There is no way to tell if there will be 3, 5, 20, 50, 100, etc. Haiku distros down the road. What happens if *most* of them were to use, HAIKU [BLANK] or [BLANK] HAIKU, for their names. I’d go crazy trying to figure it out. There are over 350 Linux distros and only about 5 use the term Linux in their name. What if 300 Linux distros used Linux term in the name? How great would that be?
I prefer distinct names for HAIKU distros and distro makers can say “A distro based off HAIKU OS” or “A HAIKU OS distro”. That would make it clear enough to me what the OS is about. (ie: GALACTIC, “A HAIKU OS DISTRO” ). And link back to HAIKU website from distro’s website.
Those guidelines are good, because they give 1. distinction between Official HAIKU OS & distros 2. Ensure Compatibility with HAIKU ( if a program works on HAIKU OS, it should also work on all HAIKU distros too ) 3. Create awareness that the distro is seperate from HAIKU ( created by a 3rd party – not associated with Official HAIKU ) and 4. Let people know if it is Alpha, Beta, RC or Final Release. ( You can’t make an Alpha distro & not inform people. If I’m new, I might not realize this & make an opinion on an unfinished OS; so it needs to be made apparent ).
The guidelines are fair and make perfect “common” sense to me. I do not find them very restrictive.
I just read the guidelines, and I don’t see what you consider “not open” about them… They simply don’t prohibit _anything_ unusual for an OSS project.
Trademark restrictions apply to damn near all OSS projects, Linux included. In a similar vein, requiring certain criteria be met in order to get a compatibility logo is no different than the LSB (Linux Standard Base). It doesn’t preclude you from doing anything you want with the source code, you just don’t get the logo if you don’t follow the rules.
The disclaimer stuff may seem oppressive on the surface, but from the wording I would say that those are simply requests, not requirements. If they were intending to be requirements traditionally the word “must” is used, not “please”
I completely agree, the guidelines are totally reasonable.
All they say is that you are not allowed to use Haiku Inc.’s trademarks, but you can use the “Haiku Compatible” logo if you don’t break compatibility (and they define some simple rules for that).
The disclaimer part is all about avoiding confusion. It’s a good idea to include this info for any modification of another open source project.
it’s like firefox, you can not use the trademark/icons, you can use the code, and call it iceweasel.
I thought that even with an open source project, you could still trademark the name in addition to the logo – isn’t that what Mozilla does for Firefox for example? You’d then be able to license out the name to anyone who follows those guidelines, instead of running the risk of possibly inferior or otherwise different distributions “diluting” the brand. That seems to be what’s happening here.
I wonder then why latest “Firefox”, 2.x, on Zeta ( and BeOS ) is called “Bon Echo”
It is the Firefox browser but goes by a different name. Not allowed to use the Firefox brandname.
This is because they aren’t sure if Firefox port on Zeta / BeOS is *stable or has new bugs* and don’t want it to reflect badly on Mozilla / Firefox.
So, it isn’t allowed to be called Firefox.
Actually “Bon Echo” is the codename of the 2.0 release. It has nothing to do with renaming of Firefox in BeOS/Zeta.
The real reason Firefox was renamed in Debian is best stated in this FAQ:
“Due to our inability to use the Firefox logo because of a non-free copyright, the Mozilla Corporation insisted that we not use the trademarked name Firefox either. Most of the details are documented in #354622 <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622>.
Even though it is not called Firefox, it still comes from exactly the same upstream, and is by and large exactly the same (the differences some distribution specific customizations, rebranding and the occasional bug fix).”
I wouldn’t call it ‘occasional bug fix’, because there is usually a lot of them. Especially now that almost all other platforms are using gcc4 while we are using gcc2.95.
This is a lame move, but fortunately they cannot legally enforce it unless they update or change the license terms.
Incorrect, the source code license has no jurisdiction over associated trademarks.
This is a lame move, but fortunately they cannot legally enforce it unless they update or change the license terms.
No, this is enforceable. The lever here is not copyright on the code, but the trademark “Haiku”. You can do anything with the MIT licensed code you want, providing you keep the license stipulations intact, but you can’t call it “something-Haiku-something” without playing by the separate trademark licensing rules.
This won’t stop the “Nippon Poem OS” variants though.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
To put it into a more personal level of understanding, if it weren’t enforceable, neither would identity theft of your name and credit, etc. be a crime. Abusing the recognition of something by claiming it is something that it isn’t is exactly the same concept, and for the same reasons.
Trademarks were created exactly for the reason of being able to pick something out and knowing that it is what it claims to be, and being able to enforce that: much like humans are named so everyone isn’t called “Hey you!” and one “Hey you!” isn’t blamed or given credit for something some other “Hey you!” is guilty of.
Their guidelines sound extremely sensible. I’d consider them necessary to protect Haiku from reputation damages by half-assed distros, while the developers can still make exceptions for great distros (though they probably count on Haiku itself becoming “the” distro).
Oh, and trademark issues have *nothing* to do with openness or the “four freedoms”. These issues are orthogonal.
I thought the plan was to make Haiku the base distro and that the devs expected others to make “full” distros for public consumtion, á la Linux? Have this opinion changed or am i misremembering?
Other than that, very reasonable move. I don’t think anyone (interrested in Haiku) want a mess of 120 semi compatible Haiku variants.
Bernd Korz posts to berndsworld that he’s opened a new business, starts selling preview copies of ‘eta’ (or some other greek alphabet letter he’ll pick at random), the Haiku-based, next-generation OS for swindling end-users and business partners!
To be honest I really don’t want more than one distribution of Haiku. Granted it works sometimes when things are split and people want to go their own direction (freebsd, netbsd, openbsd) but most of the time it does not. Haiku has a great development team who have been coding at break neck speeds and I’d hate to see them go the way of linux with the 200 distros.
As long as Haiku is better than any distros based on it, there shouldn’t be a lot of branching off like in the Linux world. I hope this is the case.
As long as Haiku is better than any distros based on it, there shouldn’t be a lot of branching off like in the Linux world.
Ah, now this is where the “fun” begins… If you go down that “what if” route… What if someone releases a better “Haiku” than Haiku, Inc. – will that become the standard? Will the entire community shift over to using that version because it’s better? What if Haiku, Inc. can’t keep up with the “quality” produced by the Non-Haiku version?
Even more interesting is: What if that “better version of Haiku” is partially closed-source? the MIT license permits this to happen…
I’m not trying to be a troll, or even suggesting that it will/could happen. It’s just an interesting thing to consider, and I hope Haiku, Inc. has also considered these possibilities and has a plan in place to prevent/address them.
If it is closed and does not look like the code will be opened in the long run, then it is doomed as a general OS.
Looking at BeOS based systems like TuneTracker. I can see why someone with extend the OS with closed sourced code so that they could sell it as a complete specialized system.
But those of us who have seen the fall of Amiga, OS2, BeOS, and Zeta are not interested in tying down our future to closed source. I like my programming freedom to write code to do what I want. And for that I need either an open source OS or lots of money to buy the license/source/docs of a closed OS, and I don’t have the money.
But those of us who have seen the fall of Amiga, OS2, BeOS, and Zeta are not interested in tying down our future to closed source.
A good point, and I agree
Seriously, what’s the appeal of Haiku vs Linux, BSD, Mac or Windows?
“Seriously, what’s the appeal of Haiku vs Linux, BSD, Mac or Windows?”
It’s not Linux, BSD, Mac or Windows.
BeOS (and by extension, Haiku) has one of the cleanest file layouts in the industry, which really simplifies file management. The C++ API for managing the OS is one of the cleanest in the industry. The OS forces a multithreaded design, which in todays multi CPU world makes the application more ‘responsive’. And finally, the philosophy of the OS is to be lean by design – granted, you may miss out on a feature or two (we dont like bloat), but on the other hand, your system will be faster.
Think of Haiku as a sports car. It is not intended to haul large amounts of cargo, it has no back seats for the kids, the trunk space for groceries is small etc. However, the OS is sooooo responsive and fast, and gives the user instant feedback to every shift, every acceleration and every bump in the road. And thats the way we like it.
I fully agree with the Guidelines. “Enforcing” them is not a matter of law but of respect. This is the OpenSource community people. Not corporate America…!!!
Appearantly a Haiku project goal is to become a mainstream free OS like Linux. This decision may turn out very well as it will surely ease the community-support by reducing the fregmentation of the user experiences and concentrating the powers to one mainstream distribution.
On the ideology part: it may be questionable that they practically prohibit/enslow the spread of any the non-official distro, but it may be the time for some pragmatism.