Here's the policy with non-screwed-up formatting: http://drupal.com/trademark . Here's the bit that made me go WTF:
Examples of "fostering the Drupal software":
- a course entitled "How to use Drupal in your business"
organized by a local non-profit organization;
- an open access monthly journal called "Drupal Coding magazine";
- an open source Apache plugin "JIT Compiler for Drupal"...
Examples which do not qualify as "fostering the Drupal software":
- creating a Drupal fork "ImprovedDrupal";
- publishing a website "drupalhallofshame.com" with
pictures of infamous Drupal contributors.
Here's another fun quote:
"Exclusively" means that any direct profits generated
by using the Drupal trademark, must also be exclusively
used to foster the Drupal software.
And this part is just hilariously delusional:
The use of the Drupal trademark as part of the name of
a function, procedure, variable name or similar source
code component is also considered "nominative fair use"
for which no license is required.
Examples:
- a procedure called drupal_add_link();
- a constant called DRUPAL_AUTHENTICATED_RID;
- a variable named $drupal_tag;
- a set of source code files called drupal.module and drupal.js.
That's 1500 drupal sites less as of the 1st of Jan. 2010.
I don't really want to inconvenience the people that have built their site using our service but as of yesterday no more new signups and end of the year it's curtains.
There is no way in hell that we can even begin to comply with this trademark policy without destroying what we've built up to date, so we might as well close shop.
For me the sticking point is not so much that these restrictions exist but the fact that they are enacted retro-actively.
We've done our bit to promote drupal, helped solve some issues, spent time and money on developing a hosting solution around drupal that is 100% automated but I'm more than willing to toss in the towel at this point.
There is no way in hell that we can even begin to comply with this trademark policy without destroying what we've built up to date.
Let's clarify. Have you been in communication with the trademark holder? Have you asked the trademark holder for permission to use the trademark, and been turned down? What exactly has the trademark holder asked you to do that would "destroy what you have built up to date"?
It seems to me that the policy gives you a long list of cases for which you don't have to ask. And, in the remaining cases, all it says is that... you have to ask. So, have you asked?
Moreover, from a quick glance at your site it is not obvious to me that you are violating the policy even now. And, if you are, perhaps it can be fixed with a very slight branding change: Invent a company name ("JacquesCorp"), change the domain to "freedrupal5hostingbyjacquescorp.com", and suddenly you get an automatic license under Section A.2:
A. You receive an automatic license when:
The Drupal trademark is used in a domain name, title of website, title of a seminar, title of a course or title of a software package that... also mentions your trademark (or your trade name, name of your company, name of your organization, or name of your association).
[DISCLAIMER: I'm an employee of a company, Acquia, founded by Drupal's founder, Dries Buytaert. However, I do not speak for the company or the Drupal Association, and my half-baked opinions are entirely my own.]
I have simply read the requirements and have decided that we can not comply in any way and that there are terms in there that would make me stop using drupal anyway (or wish that I had never started using it). The word 'boycott' is probably applicable here.
You've managed to turn a supporter first into a cautious user because of technical issues with your offerings and now into a detractor because of your ridiculous trademark policy. Think of it as the beam (not straw) that broke the camels back.
When we started this section of our business this licensing policy did not even exist, we announced our existence on 'drupal.org' and received the impression that such use of the name drupal the way we do it is ok.
If there would be any automatic grandfathering for sites that existed prior to this nonsensical trademark policy being dreamed up that would change the situation a little bit, but it would not change my opinion much because of the overall absolutely ridiculous statements made in the policy the way it is worded right now.
Even if I could resolve the issue by changing our domain name, the name of the service or anything like that I would point blank refuse to do so because I think the policy as displayed is comparable to the use of submarine patents.
There are plenty of people that have created a living around the drupal eco system, they already contribute in many ways by raising awareness, providing hosting, writing software etc.
That should be enough payment for the use of the trademark in my opinion, no need to get your hands in everybody's pockets.
It's a total loss strategy.
Imagine Linus Torvalds, the holder of the Linux trademark creating a policy comparable with this one.
The world of free and open source software has just gotten poorer.
I'm currently doing research on the text. Here's the Linux policy: http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php . It's quite a bit more permissive: it would have allowed your site to exist without applying for a license. On the other hand, if you'd started advertising your project under the trademark "Free Linux Hosting", you'd have to apply for a Linux license.
I don't understand, why doesn't your website mention the trademark policy issue? There's still time for them to revoke it, however improbable that may be.
The proper response might be to register drupaltrademarkpolicysucks.com , put up explanatory text there, publicize it and wait for the legal action. To my mind, any project that will even consider such legal action doesn't follow the spirit of free software, whatever the letter may be.
The "hilariously delusional" part is actually covered by trademark law but was added in response to questions from key Drupal contributors. Not everyone is an expert in international trademark law.
Hello. I'm one of the persons who started this debacle (the Vladimir Slepnev from the signature at drupalsucks.com, the want_to_want who submitted the thing to reddit) and would like to add a note of friendliness to the discussion. Apologies if this comes late.
Neither of us subscribes to the unacceptable personal attacks on you and your family. We're also pretty much fans of your software; Jacques was basing his business on it, and I'm seriously planning to do the same in the near future. For any new business, voluntarily honoring the policy terms isn't likely to be a big chore - it does seem to be very carefully written in this regard.
The issue with the policy (as I see it) is twofold. First, the lack of a grandfather clause or anything to that effect will impact some existing legitimate sites adversely; this is Jacques's complaint. Second, and more importantly for me personally, trying to ensure that domain names mentioning Drupal in a negative manner don't get registered... sounds like a violation of some unspoken honor code of free software. No, Linux Mark doesn't do the same with the trademark it owns - see their FAQ. Neither do I with my open source stuff (which nobody uses, but still). While this issue likely won't drive me away from Drupal, I still feel that going down this path is a mistake.
Sorry if I misunderstood your comments, or misrepresented the policy, in any way.
Drupal has become a known brand over the years, seems no more than prudent to protect it. The software is GPL, so your rights are safe. You can take the code and fork the hell out of it. You just can't call it "Steve0's Improved Drupal".
I don't get it, people are given code for free, to use modify and learn from. Still they complain that not everyone can use the 'brandname' for whatever use they see fit.
"Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required), if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing. About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm. Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application."
Drupal has become a known brand over the years, seems no more than prudent to protect it.
The stakes are far more important than this sentence would suggest. Drupal's trademark protection is the lynchpin of its security, for example.
Without careful trademark protection for the name Drupal, there's no law which stops me from opening up a site called "Official Drupal Upgrades" and distributing module upgrades full of deliberately-introduced security backdoors. I'm legally permitted to write insecure code. I'm legally permitted to distribute insecure code and to encourage you to install it. I'm even allowed to base that insecure code on Drupal, because Drupal is GPL. [1] The only way to stop me from confusing Drupal users, possibly in a very dangerous way, is to enforce the trademark.
---
[1] I do have to give you the source code, and if you do a security audit on that code you might find my security backdoors. But how many Drupal users read every line of their modules' source code, let alone understand it all? Eliminating the need to bestow loving care on each and every line of your source code is one of the Drupal project's major goals.
The only insecure drupal code I've ever downloaded came from drupal.org. With some regularity even.
If you have an example of where the drupal licensing terms - which seem to be geared towards commerce - have been used to combat the spread of malware that would be helpful, I can't seem to locate any using the major search engines.
Either way, I'm more than willing to listen to feedback, and make changes to the trademark policy. As explained in this thread, the policy was developed with the help of the community, and I'll continue to refine and improve the policy based on constructive feedback and concrete suggestions. Unfortunately, so far, I've not seen concrete suggestions -- this entire discussion seems to be pretty trollish.
- Parties that had an operation going before this policy became public are not and will not be bound by it now or in the future.
(grandfather clause)
- registering domains that are critical of drupal is fine, in fact drupal should welcome criticism, even when drupal does not control the forum. The need for that is evidenced by the fact that criticism on the drupal.org site is not always taken in a way that invites further criticism.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and by trying to control the forum you are effectively saying that drupal is afraid of criticism in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft are afraid of criticism.
We're talking about an open source CMS here, no need to go overboard.
- remove the ridiculous claims that all proceeds from projects involving the drupal name should go towards 'fostering drupal software'. Live and let live. That's my reading of the wording right now, maybe your interpretation differs.
- reserve the right to enforce your trademark rights in sofar as the use of the name directly damages drupal with malicious intent.
(such as that guy that had registered drupal.se that I mentioned elsewhere).
And last but not least, simplify the thing, make it at least less than 1/3 the size it is right now. If you expect people to read it and post if front and center on drupal.org so that a person new to drupal has no way to get to the software without knowing what the rules of the game are.
I've been involved with the Drupal community for the past few years, and I just don't see the problem here. Were this to do with a restriction on using the software, that would be one thing, but the vast majority of Drupal users will not be affected by this.
It does sound like an attempt to keep away negative press on Drupal (note the negative domain names that are proposed as examples in violation) which doesn't do much for my confidence, but the project continues to make significant strides as they work towards the 7.0 release.
I can't help but to think that this has some strange relationship with Acquia, Dries Buytaert's year-old business centered on the software.
As they say back home "I'm just gobsmacked". This is absolutely the most offensive piece of misinformed trash I've ever encountered on HN. Nothing more than a nasty personal attack on Dries. Whether or not you like Drupal is beside the point. Dries is one of those thoughtful, modest and intelligent contributors to the open source community. The trademark policy in question was carefully vetted with the community and with legal experts. This vile little attack is quite uncalled for. Excuse me while I go wash my hands. I feel unclean.
I've seen this contribute to severely damaging a GPL'd web application community in a slightly different sphere. They sent threatening letters to anyone hosting, supporting, reselling etc. the software claiming you couldn't use their name. They sold licences to allow you to do so.
I'm fairly certain it wasn't even legal since the whole point of trademarks is to prevent confusion. Claiming to repair Volkswagens doesn't mean you're claiming to be Volkswagen.
I can't tell if this is making exactly the same mistake, certainly the examples given elsewhere in this thread by cousin_it seem to be conspicuously missing any activity that makes money, even a training course, using the name Drupal. I see an update to that post which includes language suggesting you can make money from Drupal, but unless you then invest all that money back into Drupal, you can't use the name. Very short sighted.
Please read the policy more carefully because your comment incorrect. If you make money with Drupal, you can still use the name 'Drupal'. It just means that you might not qualify for the automatic license grant procedure, and that you need to apply for a license so we can provide guidance as what is considered to be fair use of the Drupal name.
I mispoke when I said "can't use the name". I meant to say "Drupal claim that you can't use the name without applying for a revocable licence and paying a fee".
This still isn't ideal if it is being implied that the licence and fee is necessary when (in many cases) legally it isn't required. I believe under UK law falsely accusing people of trademark infringement can open you up to lawsuits in return.
Sounds like Firefox/Iceweasel -debate all over again. It's still FLOSS, even if you don't have free rights to the brands which the software is distributed under.
Just to repeat: trademarks do not conflict with software freedom.
This is way stupider than cases like CentOS vs. Prominent North American Linux Vendor
Here what will happen is that end-users will just have no idea that their whitebox hosted site runs on Drupal internally. Yes, you enjoin asshats from promoting themselves as you, but it's still a net negative.
The difference is that no one is going to start searching for "Dave consulting".
A lot of people run sites and businesses with "Drupal" in the name. For the last 8 years, nobody's had to worry about licensing issues. Now things seem to be changing, and it's not really clear why.
A high-traffic website "drupalindepth.com" containing sponsored ads, qualifies for an automatic license when the profits generated from these ads (minus hosting costs and other obvious costs incurred for maintaining the website) are used to pay a full-time developer working on the new open source Drupal template engine.
And:
Example uses for which the license grant procedure must be followed:
* a commercial website hosted under domain name "commonusesofdrupal.com";
There's a difference. If you see the URL drupalindepth.com or commonusesofdrupal.com, you obviously should think "hey, this is about the Drupal software blah blah blah", while if you see davedoesdrupal.com, you should think "This is about what dave does with drupal", not "what drupal does in general". The first is allowed, the second isn't unless you have a license.
Apply for a license. As said, the goal of the policy is to create a fair-level playing ground for all people and organizations that are part of the Drupal community. If your use of the Drupal name is fair for others, if it does not suggest an official link with the Drupal project, and if you adhere to the Rules of Use, there shouldn't be a problem. In fact, the trademark policy helps protect your investment in Drupal because it avoids that others can use the name in ways that are unfair to you or your Drupal business.
The lack of a Drupal trademark policy doesn't mean the trademark was unprotected -- it was protected by trademark law. By creating a trademark policy and a licensing procedure, we've provided us options we did not have before. Things have become more permissive.
I'm not seeing the problem here. There seems to be all sorts of allowed uses and as far as I can tell, the only restriction is that you can't claim to be Drupal, just have to identify yourself as a supplier of Drupal.
To be a bit more precise: The policy states that you're not going to be granted permission by the trademark holder to use the trademark "Drupal" in the domain name "drupalsucks.com".
Whether or not this "prohibits" you is a more complicated question. First, you can always ask: The trademark holder can always grant you an exception if you make your case eloquently enough.
Failing that, you can use the trademark without permission. If you don't get sued, you'll be fine. If you do get sued but a court decides that a sentence embedded in a domain name is a form of fair use, you'll be fine.
The policy goes so far as to explicitly clarify that you're allowed to write the phrase "Drupal sucks" in a blog post as often as you like, without having to ask permission. That's fair use. The law is clear on that.
But domain names are special: A bit less like newspaper articles or diary entries, a bit more like signs in front of a business. Their trademark status is less clear -- whether a specific domain name infringes a trademark is a complicated matter, full of grey areas, questions of intent, and questions of interpretation, that must be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. And this policy reserves the trademark holder's right to take that question to court in certain cases.
--
DISCLAIMER CENTRAL: I am not a lawyer. I am employed by a company, Acquia, that was founded by Drupal's trademark holder. I do not speak for my company, or for Drupal, and my opinions are entirely my own -- and, where they touch upon the law, they're probably all wrong.
"This policy - as well as the accompanying website - may be changed at any time. You accept that all licenses accorded under this policy are non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sub-licensable, revocable at any time, and subject to changes in policy. Hence, changes in this policy may cause permissions to be revoked or made dependent on additional obligations."
(I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah.)
Absent any agreement with X, is "Xsucks.com" a trademark violation? I don't know.
If it isn't, then no worries. If its not a trademark violation then X have no hold over you.
If it is, then what is the complaint against X? That they they are not helping people attack them by witholding permission to use thier trademark?
Say I owned the trademark "billpg" and someone was asking my permission to register "billpgIsAPatheticVirgin.com". Is it morally wrong of me to tell that person to go do something unpleasant?
Absent any agreement with X, is "Xsucks.com" a trademark violation? I don't know.
I'm not sure anybody knows, and I'm particularly unsure that anybody can know in advance. That's why this particular legal agreement doesn't concede the point up front.
The question of whether "billpgIsAPatheticVirgin.com" infringes on the "billpg" trademark involves questions like: Are customers being confused? These are not questions that you can answer in the abstract. If I merely register the domain but it doesn't get indexed by Google and I never show it to anyone, the answer is probably "no". If I put up a site at the domain that looks exactly like the official "billpg" site and then drive traffic to it, the answer moves towards "yes". If I deploy enough SEO tricks to drive billpgIsAPatheticVirgin.com to the top of a Google search page for "billpg", the answer is even more likely to be "yes".
It's got to be hashed out in court, if it comes to that.
I can't see this policy helping Drupal at all. If Dries is actually planning to enforce this, I suspect there will be a lot of fallout in the community.
Get over yourself. Dries invented drupal, Dries named Drupal, Dries owns the trademark for Drupal and always has. Dries is also free to do with his trademark whatever he wishes.
If you chose to create a project/business named after someone else's trademark that's on you and your extremely poor judgment.
The personal attack against him and his FAMILY is more than "poor packaging"-- it's deplorable. Being 'upset' is not an excuse for insulting someone or their FAMILY. WTF is going on with this world that this is even remotely considered acceptable?
This sounds like some good old FUD. Unfortunately, attacking me, or my family, doesn't make for a constructive argument. Last time I checked, my personal blog was ... my personal blog. I'm not asking you to be a reader of my blog.
Anyway, I've owned the Drupal trademark for a long time. The lack of a Drupal trademark policy doesn't mean the trademark was unprotected -- it was protected by trademark law. The lack of a Drupal trademark policy meant that it was unclear what was allowed and what wasn't allowed, and frankly, that you were bound by trademark law. By creating a trademark policy and a licensing procedure, we've provided us options we did not have before. Things have become more permissive.
The goal of our new policy is to provide guidance and clarity on how the Drupal trademark is allowed to be used. The goal of the policy is to create a fair-level playing ground for all people and organizations that are part of the Drupal community.
The entire process of developing the policy was a community effort, with help from a variety of legal experts. We worked on the policy over the course of almost two years. A draft version of the policy was posted at http://groups.drupal.org/node/19068, and through the community feedback that developed there, we ironed out many of the wrinkles of my original draft. Larry Garfield, the Drupal Association's current legal representative has provided feedback, and both my own attorney (DLA Piper) and additional attorneys from the Software Freedom Law Center and the Drupal Association were part of the policy's development. To help validate our work, we reviewed other similar policies from sister projects to make sure that we were in-line with the current legal trends in open-source development.
You probably don't remember me but a while ago there was an extortion attempt by the holder of drupal.se, I offered to buy the domain and donate it to you.
So much for my stance on whether I think you are the 'rightful owner' of drupal.org and/or the drupal trademark.
I agree with you on the slurs in the article posted, but that should probably be taken in light of the heat of the moment.
That said, I think the policy that you have put in place is - for want of better terms - less than elegant.
It presumes a say in the income streams of companies clustered around the drupal brand, it presumes that it is ok to dump this on us one fine morning in August, without consultation or consideration.
It's a bit like the mob movies, one day some guy walks in to your shop and explains that you have a new partner.
He'll tell you how to allocate your funds and what your profit margin can be. In return for not having something bad happen to your company. And all that because you share your Italian ancestry in your name.
Sure, you started drupal. And sure, you are by far the single largest contributor to its success. But overall the other people that have been contributing to drupal hold a much larger share in the total than you.
First thing I knew about this whole thing was when I read about it on the link posted here.
I read the trademark policy (blue on a bluegray background, you owe me a new pair of eyes) in its entirety and my conclusion was very simple: You've lost it.
I don't care which big name companies and advisors have had a hand in crafting this, I refuse to accept these terms.
There was - as far as I know - never a single mailing to the drupal community in its entirety about this policy, which would have been an excellent way of telling people that something important that might affect them is happening. That would have gone a long long way towards getting people involved.
By foregoing that opportunity you will now have to live with having that discussion 'after the fact'. And a lot more public. And with people that are upset.
In the link you present above less than 20 people are involved out of a community that numbers probably in the 10's of thousands. That alone should make you wonder if you had a broad enough exposure for the process. Shades of the hitchhikers guide planning council there.
A one-sided automatic license may be possible according to the laws in Belgium, I'm no expert on Belgian law. But I do know that usually it is not sufficient to post a license agreement somewhere on a website and to expect parties to be bound by it. Especially parties that have been active for a long long time using the word 'drupal' in their domain name. Even if they did not have an agreement in place before.
After all, if according to you a thread on drupal.org is sufficient notice then by extension you should have known about our existence.
So, now we are at a stalemate. I refuse to accept your terms to licensing the use of the word drupal under your current proposal.
And you think that I should get a license.
I don't think it should be your right to muzzle critics about drupal by saying which domain names they can register and which they can not. And I'm not even a critic of drupal, just of this policy.
Criticism is good for you.
As long as such a domain is used to vent criticism of the product and not in any way used to extort then that party is in the clear.
I don't think it should be your right to - after years of being aware that companies are creating entities affiliated with the drupal name - suddenly start telling those people how they can or can not run their businesses.
Under those conditions I wish you best of luck with your CMS, and I hope that in time you will come to the conclusion that this policy the way it is worded right now is over the top. And that you will amend it, or at least strip out the more obvious over the top bits.
I'm not sure who advised you on that part, but you could have a look at the lockheedsucks.com case. It is enlightening.
I guarantee you that drupalsucks.com is not going to be used to either extort you and / or your company.
The preamble says that this policy was created in response to "the questions received by Dries Buytaert from various persons and companies". That in itself makes it sound like most people have been playing nice and have asked for clarification before launching a product that might infringe on the Drupal trademark.
Have there been any specific cases of an individual or company willfully infringing on the trademark?
