Top
Best
New

Posted by maxloh 6 days ago

Trademark violation: Fake Notepad++ for Mac(notepad-plus-plus.org)
633 points | 304 commentspage 5
garganzol 6 days ago|
[flagged]
kube-system 5 days ago||
Arch Linux would be in trouble for using the Linux name if they didn't license the trademark.

But they do!

Have you looked at https://archlinux.org/ ?

Scroll to the bottom of the page, you will see:

> The registered trademark Linux® is used pursuant to a sublicense from LMI, the exclusive licensee of Linus Torvalds, owner of the mark on a world-wide basis.

matsemann 6 days ago|||
No, GPL gives you access to the source code, not the trademark. The reaction by the N++ author is perfectly in order.
brovonov 5 days ago||
> At the end, it boils down to money: there are tons of ads on Notepad++ website, so having a competitive offering like "Notepad++ for Mac" threatens that business strategy.

Tons of ads? Really? I had to turn off my adblocker to check, but there is a single ad block on the bottom left. Is that considered a ton?

gverrilla 6 days ago||
It's the Trump pattern: break all rules to benefit yourself until someone or something stops you. USA has not yet reached this clarity.
user3939382 5 days ago|
[dead]
CodeWriter23 5 days ago||
I think this all turns on, did the original author assert "Addtional Terms" under GPL v3 7e:

e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

If he did not, it would appear to this non-lawyer that he released the icon and branding under the GPL.

kube-system 5 days ago|
The author does not have to assert those additional terms to have trademark protection, because the law provides for that by default, and the GPL v3 does not have a trademark grant clause.

GPL v3 e7 means that, if for whatever reason, you do explicitly disclaim trademark grants, it does not violate or invalidate the copyright license.

temporallobe 6 days ago||
I wasn’t even aware a native port was available for Mac. I tried it with Wine and it was awful. These days my colleagues and I are using Zed as the de facto high-performance text editor.
RIMR 6 days ago|
Notepad++ is GPL, and this fork has followed the rules of that license.

Other GPL projects have unofficial forks that didn't change the name or logo for the software in the process, and it mostly seems fine. FreeBSD ports are probably a good example of these in the wild.

Listing the original author as an author of the port is a requirement of the GPL, and the language used on this website makes it clear that Dan is the original author of the Windows release, and not the developer of the Mac release.

The only thing I see as an issue here is how the author of the port, Andrey, has failed to directly indicate that this is an unofficial port anywhere on the website, and is promoting this as if it were official. He does seem to be some engaging in some shameless self-promotion, and I understand how the open source community would not appreciate someone vibe-porting a popular GPL tool, and then acting like they own part of the official project now.

In that respect, I do see a trademark violation.

kstrauser 5 days ago||
> FreeBSD ports are probably a good example of these in the wild.

FreeBSD ports are nearly always tiny patches on a project together it to compile on that OS, and look for its config in /usr/local/etc instead of /etc. It is the original software plus minimal tweaks. Linux distros do the exact same thing. When you install a Debian package, you’re getting Debian’s patched version. Same for RedHat, Homebrew, and nearly every other package manager.

The fork we’re discussing here is a rewrite of the original in a different language while still calling it the original name.

xbar 6 days ago||
Trademark violation is the problem. It is a sufficiently significant problem.