mrwyz

Exhibit B, C: https://automattic.com/2024/09/25/open-source-trademarks-wp-...

Put some money on those 0% odds.

The law is not black-and-white. Absolutes like "Everyone can use your Trademark to identify the thing" don't fit in this context. Your reliance on Wikipedia to summarize a doctrine further demonstrates you don't have a firm grasp on the subject. Of course none on HN should listen to legal interpretations (including mine) because it's often not that simple. You can get a glimpse of the issue by reading this commentary from the American Bar: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...

I think (and that's my opinion) that a jury would see that what wpengine is doing is not fair use and that their offering is creating confusion among consumers, but that's not for me (or you, or anyone else here on HN) to decide.

That's not how U.S. trademark law works.

To me, it seems they have been using the mark to describe a product and the policy says clearly:

but they cannot use them as part of a product

I mean, just go to wpengine.com and look at the first menu item: Products --> WordPress Hosting.

I'm hopeful Automattic will win this one; WP Engine repackages WordPress and delivers it as a service. Fine. Software license allows for that. That does not give them the right to describe their service as "[the] Most Trusted WordPress Hosting and Beyond". They clearly say so in their policy: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/

Certainly. MIT/BSD more or less says: steal away (but retain this license notice). In some cases that's desirable.

Only if you think taking the work of others and profiting from it without contributing anything back is fine.

BSD/MIT allows you to take code without any obligation to contribute back.

MIT/BSD and similar ones.

The AGPL is great, even for business. I make a living from AGPL software. Lots of people generally don't like it, because AGPL was not written to please the largest number of developers, but rather to protect the basic software freedoms of end-users. In a sense, the AGPL guarantees more freedoms, is more free, than other licenses such as MIT/BSD for end-users. But depends on the point of view.

Many developers don’t like to have their freedom to steal to be restricted by such strong terms as those imposed by the AGPL. And that’s a good thing for you, my fellow maintainers. It’s also a great thing for you, dear end-users.

I handle this by redirecting all questions (anything that isn't a feature request or a bug report) to the project's community forum (hosted on discourse). Then I wrote and deployed https://github.com/pierotofy/issuewhiz to automatically catch and close issues that are identified as questions. GitHub issues is not the place to ask questions, in my opinion.

Here's an example of it in action: https://github.com/LibreTranslate/LibreTranslate/issues/632

It's been working pretty well.

Excellent, good for them! I don't understand why other governments don't follow suit, or why people are opposed to it. There might be some valid cons about requiring the use of FOSS (e.g. LibreOffice vs MS Office), but the part about requiring government sponsored code to be released as open source is clearly good for governments. Having the code freely open is good leverage against greed and good insurance for vendor failures.

Not open source. Misleading title.

The app looks very cool, but you might have a licensing issue; Meta's NLLB models are CC-BY-NC 4.0 (non-commercial use only). I could recommend checking out the OPUS-NLP models, which are truly open.

Cool, but not touching this; no license and requires Inria's proprietary rasterizer.

People should stop basing all of this new research on proprietary software, when we have open source implementations [1][2].

[1] gsplat: https://github.com/nerfstudio-project/gsplat [2] opensplat: https://github.com/pierotofy/opensplat

"never apply".

https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/