OpenBSD Trademark Policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
45 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried
looking, but I couldn't find a document.)

1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the
name "OpenBSD" throughout the system?

2. If it needs to be changed, which parts of the system would you
require the change in?

3. From other discussions on the mailing list, it seems that the "Puffy"
logo is restricted, so I imagine it would be necessary to change the
default xdm configuration, but nothing else.

Thanks for considering,

Riley Baird

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Nick Holland
On 12/06/14 03:44, Riley Baird wrote:
> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried
> looking, but I couldn't find a document.)
>
> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the
> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system?

Short answer: follow the license.
Read it over and over until you understand what it means.  Hire a lawyer
if you have any questions.  The license is on the top of almost every
source file (and you will see some differences in different source
files...EACH FILE's license has to be respected in what you do with that
file).

Not sure what you mean by "throughout the system" -- it's case-by-case.
If you see a copyright with the OpenBSD.org email address, you keep
that, per the license.  If your end result is clearly not OpenBSD and
something is referring to the overall product, you SHOULD change it,
since the overall product isn't OpenBSD anymore.

> 2. If it needs to be changed, which parts of the system would you
> require the change in?

again... follow the license.  If it ISN'T OpenBSD anymore, don't call it
OpenBSD.

> 3. From other discussions on the mailing list, it seems that the "Puffy"
> logo is restricted, so I imagine it would be necessary to change the
> default xdm configuration, but nothing else.

depends what you are doing.  FOLLOW THE LICENSE.

What isn't in the license: support your product, don't send people to
the OpenBSD mail lists for support.  You may not be violating the
license, but we'll be very unhappy with you, and we'll let people know.
 If you find a problem that comes from OpenBSD, replicate it on OpenBSD
and report that.

But again...if you have any questions, hire a lawyer.  It isn't hard to
do right.  Isn't hard to do wrong, either...  Advice on the 'net is
cheap and often wrong. :)

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Christian Weisgerber
On 2014-12-06, Nick Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy.
>
> Short answer: follow the license.

The license governs _copyright_.  The _trademark_ is a wholly
different beast.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
On 07/12/14 01:59, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2014-12-06, Nick Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy.
>>
>> Short answer: follow the license.
>
> The license governs _copyright_.  The _trademark_ is a wholly
> different beast.

Exactly correct. Take Firefox for an example. It is under the trilicense
of MPL/LGPL/GPL, but Debian had to change all references to Firefox to
"Iceweasel", because Mozilla claims that if *any* patches are applied to
the product, it may no longer be called Firefox unless all of the
patches are approved by Mozilla.

For that reason, it is often good to clarify trademark policy.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
> Not sure what you mean by "throughout the system" -- it's case-by-case.
> If you see a copyright with the OpenBSD.org email address, you keep
> that, per the license.  If your end result is clearly not OpenBSD and
> something is referring to the overall product, you SHOULD change it,
> since the overall product isn't OpenBSD anymore.

Okay, I'll change the name. What I'm wondering is, which mentions of the
OpenBSD name should I change? For example, you said before that the
OpenBSD name may not be removed from the license headers of source
files. So far, I can see that I would have to change the default motd,
the installation scripts, Theo's welcome root mail and xdm. Is there
anything that I have missed?

> What isn't in the license: support your product, don't send people to
> the OpenBSD mail lists for support.  You may not be violating the
> license, but we'll be very unhappy with you, and we'll let people know.
>  If you find a problem that comes from OpenBSD, replicate it on OpenBSD
> and report that.

Good point about the mailing lists. I'll get people to contact me for
support first, then I'll confirm that the problem still exists in
OpenBSD and finally I'll ask the OpenBSD mailing lists if I can't solve
the problem myself.

> But again...if you have any questions, hire a lawyer.  It isn't hard to
> do right.  Isn't hard to do wrong, either...  Advice on the 'net is
> cheap and often wrong. :)

I doubt that hiring a lawyer would be necessary. I fully intend to
comply with OpenBSD's policies, and from reading the mailing lists about
past situations like this, it appears that OpenBSD is not likely to sue
me if I make a good faith mistake, only if I refuse to correct it. :P

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Adam Thompson
On 14-12-06 03:20 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
> Okay, I'll change the name. What I'm wondering is, which mentions of
> the OpenBSD name should I change? For example, you said before that
> the OpenBSD name may not be removed from the license headers of source
> files. So far, I can see that I would have to change the default motd,
> the installation scripts, Theo's welcome root mail and xdm. Is there
> anything that I have missed?

You might want to ask on the BitRig mailing lists/forums/whatevers,
since I believe they would have already had to tackle this.

--
-Adam Thompson
  [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
On 07/12/14 09:35, Adam Thompson wrote:

> On 14-12-06 03:20 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
>> Okay, I'll change the name. What I'm wondering is, which mentions of
>> the OpenBSD name should I change? For example, you said before that
>> the OpenBSD name may not be removed from the license headers of source
>> files. So far, I can see that I would have to change the default motd,
>> the installation scripts, Theo's welcome root mail and xdm. Is there
>> anything that I have missed?
>
> You might want to ask on the BitRig mailing lists/forums/whatevers,
> since I believe they would have already had to tackle this.

Thanks, I've looked through the Bitrig commit messages and I think that
I've found what I'm looking for!

If I actually get around to making the derivative, and I leave some
mentions of OpenBSD where I shouldn't have, and this bothers the OpenBSD
project, and someone tells me that it does, then I will be happy to
correct it. :)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
In reply to this post by Riley Baird
On 07/12/14 09:05, Daniel Dickman wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Riley Baird
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried
>> looking, but I couldn't find a document.)
>>
>> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the
>> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system?
>
> It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to
> create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in
> the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly.

I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep
system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD
with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name.

As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
binary-only microcode included.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Kaspars Bankovskis
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:35:03PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> binary-only microcode included.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Brad Smith-14
In reply to this post by Riley Baird
On 12/07/14 03:35, Riley Baird wrote:
> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> binary-only microcode included.

Doesn't really make any sense why. But either way hopefully you're
not using common hardware like AMD GPUs or Intel Wifi otherwise that
is pretty crippling.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
In reply to this post by Kaspars Bankovskis
On 07/12/14 19:53, Kaspars Bankovskis wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:35:03PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>> binary-only microcode included.
>
> What exactly do you mean by that?

Look in sys/dev/microcode. This is the firmware required for some
devices to operate, and is loaded into the device on boot. It is clear
that this was not written in assembly; rather, it has been compiled, and
we are only getting the output.

You could argue that this is better than hardware where the firmware is
physically on the hardware, because at least the blobs we load onto the
hardware can be reverse engineered, and to a certain degree you would be
right. Except nobody actually reverse engineers them. ath9k for Linux
has open-source firmware thanks to atheros, and this has actually been
modified for various interesting applications.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
In reply to this post by Brad Smith-14
On 07/12/14 19:59, Brad Smith wrote:
> On 12/07/14 03:35, Riley Baird wrote:
>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>> binary-only microcode included.
>
> Doesn't really make any sense why. But either way hopefully you're
> not using common hardware like AMD GPUs or Intel Wifi otherwise that
> is pretty crippling.

I'd personally rather choose to activate a device that required
binary-only firmware after realising that it doesn't work, because at
least then I know what I'm getting myself into. I had Intel Wifi for a
period of time on Debian, and I had to install the package for it
myself. I'd always felt uneasy about it, and now whenever I buy wireless
hardware for Linux, I ensure that I'll buy one that will work with the
open ath9k.

That being said, this should be less of a problem with OpenBSD, since a
large portion of its use is in server applications, when you should
really be using ethernet anyway.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff-2
In reply to this post by Riley Baird
Riley Baird said:
> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> binary-only microcode included.

Isn't it easier to just do

 # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware

from bsd.rd after installer exits?

--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:

> Riley Baird said:
>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>> binary-only microcode included.
>
> Isn't it easier to just do
>
>  # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
>
> from bsd.rd after installer exits?

Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.

However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
remove it should they wish to

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Joel Rees-2
In reply to this post by Riley Baird
Hi, Riley,

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Riley Baird
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/12/14 09:05, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Riley Baird
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried
>>> looking, but I couldn't find a document.)
>>>
>>> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the
>>> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system?
>>
>> It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to
>> create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in
>> the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly.
>
> I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep
> system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD
> with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name.

Don't think too far ahead. but do talk to a lawyer if you decide to
try to publish a derivative.

(I think you do understand that you have to leave the opyright notices
as they are, but that's not the worst of the problems. If you have the
money for an hour or two of consultation, you should find a good
lawyer to talk it over with. Won't solve every problem, but it will
leave you in a better position to seek solutions.)

> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> binary-only microcode included.

The openbsd team has a pretty good track record at deciding which
binary blobs can be put up with. They also have a relatively good
track record with persuading companies to open up their source.

Relatively. :-(

I'm not sure, but I'd guess no one else in the libre/opensource
community can claim a better record.

--
Joel Rees

Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart,
and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Otto Moerbeek
In reply to this post by Riley Baird
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:

> On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> > Riley Baird said:
> >> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
> >> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
> >> binary-only microcode included.
> >
> > Isn't it easier to just do
> >
> >  # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
> >
> > from bsd.rd after installer exits?
>
> Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
> script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
> firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
> to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
>
> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
> remove it should they wish to

The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.

Code running on a device is a completely different category.

        -Otto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Brad Smith-14
In reply to this post by Riley Baird
On 12/07/14 04:29, Riley Baird wrote:
> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
> remove it should they wish to

Your interpretation of the "marketing" is flawed. The "marketing" about
blobs was about device drivers in the kernel only.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
In reply to this post by Joel Rees-2
>>>> I have a few questions about OpenBSD's trademark policy. (I tried
>>>> looking, but I couldn't find a document.)
>>>>
>>>> 1. What is OpenBSD's stance on allowing derivative distros to keep the
>>>> name "OpenBSD" throughout the system?
>>>
>>> It's a ton of work to change the name. I'm curious why you want to
>>> create a derivative distro? Besides all kinds of subtle breakage in
>>> the base system, many ports will break/stop working properly.
>>
>> I agree entirely. For this reason, I think it would be best to keep
>> system internals (e.g. uname, includes, etc.) using the name OpenBSD
>> with only the main user-visible parts changed to a new name.
>
> Don't think too far ahead. but do talk to a lawyer if you decide to
> try to publish a derivative.
>
> (I think you do understand that you have to leave the opyright notices
> as they are, but that's not the worst of the problems. If you have the
> money for an hour or two of consultation, you should find a good
> lawyer to talk it over with. Won't solve every problem, but it will
> leave you in a better position to seek solutions.)

I see your point, but I'm just wondering - if you are recommending that
I get a lawyer, is that because such a distro would upset the OpenBSD
community so much that someone would try to take legal action against me?

I don't want to do anything that would hurt the community, so if
feelings about this are that strong, then I won't do it. But really, I
think that taking legal action over something like this is an overreaction.

>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>> binary-only microcode included.
>
> The openbsd team has a pretty good track record at deciding which
> binary blobs can be put up with. They also have a relatively good
> track record with persuading companies to open up their source.
>
> Relatively. :-(
>
> I'm not sure, but I'd guess no one else in the libre/opensource
> community can claim a better record.

Agreed. Thanks for that! (Especially, I like Theo's method of screaming
at manufacturers - because surprisingly, it *actually worked*.)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Riley Baird
In reply to this post by Otto Moerbeek
On 07/12/14 20:52, Otto Moerbeek wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
>>> Riley Baird said:
>>>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>>>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>>>> binary-only microcode included.
>>>
>>> Isn't it easier to just do
>>>
>>>  # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
>>>
>>> from bsd.rd after installer exits?
>>
>> Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
>> script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
>> firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
>> to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
>>
>> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
>> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
>> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
>> remove it should they wish to
>
> The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.
>
> Code running on a device is a completely different category.

True, but the press releases never even mentioned the microcode, which
is kind of confusing given the normal usage of the word "binary blob".

I realise that this usage may have been propagated by the FSF, and on
many, many things they are insane (e.g. OpenBSD's ports tree, the GFDL),
but given that - for better or for worse - firmware is included in the
common usage of the word, it would make sense to clarify.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenBSD Trademark Policy

Brad Smith-14
On 12/07/14 05:18, Riley Baird wrote:

> On 07/12/14 20:52, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 08:29:48PM +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/12/14 20:20, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
>>>> Riley Baird said:
>>>>> As for why I want to create the distro, I think that OpenBSD has
>>>>> excellent security, and I would like to create a version without the
>>>>> binary-only microcode included.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it easier to just do
>>>>
>>>>   # cd /mnt/etc; tar czf firmware{.tgz,}; rm -R firmware
>>>>
>>>> from bsd.rd after installer exits?
>>>
>>> Yes, it definitely would be. You'd also need to change the installer
>>> script such that fw_update is not run on first boot. I've removed the
>>> firmware from my own system already. Also, it would be nice to be able
>>> to build the source tree without requiring the firmware files to exist.
>>>
>>> However, remember that if someone doesn't know much about OpenBSD, they
>>> will either: a) think that OpenBSD does not contain binary-only firmware
>>> due to the "Blob-Busters" marketing or b) not know where to look to
>>> remove it should they wish to
>>
>> The blobs we do not like are pieces of code running inside the kernel.
>>
>> Code running on a device is a completely different category.
>
> True, but the press releases never even mentioned the microcode, which
> is kind of confusing given the normal usage of the word "binary blob".

"Blobs are vendor-compiled binary drivers without any source code."

That couldn't be more clear what the projects meaning of blobs is.
Microcode won't be mentioned when it is already pretty clear what the
meaning is. Nothing to be confused about there at all. That is your
interpretation of the meaning and not the common use.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

123