@trevdev facebook owns the word... book
When you hear of a social media called "OpenBook", you are 100% certain that they chose that name because of Facebook, so fb has a right here to me. It was incredibly irresponsible to name a competing project with such a similar name.
Trademarks are meant to protect brand names especially in the fields they act in. It makes total sense calling your competing project with a reference to your competitor is not legal.
Are we gonna give them a pass just because they're open source? That would be the real bias.
If I made a phone called the "1Phone", it would make total sense I would be sued by Apple. Or a gaming console called the "Funstation". Or a video platform called "TheTube".
If you call a competing product like your competitor, you are unfairly taking advantage of their brand recognition to get the concept of your platform across.
It was a dick move by Facebook to do this to an OSS project. But it's fair.
@NekoSock @Ste1lar I don't think "Tweet" falls into the same realm of bias as "Book", or "Phone" or even "Tube", and definitely not "station". My argument stands for all of those and I don't agree that it's fair.
We're just going to have to disagree on this one :) - A big corporation like Facebook doesn't even need to do this sort of shit and if anything, they should be learning from why OpenBook was conceived in the first place, instead of stabbing them with loopholes.
The fact that it was an OSS project makes it a huge dick move, but you ahve to look past that. The name OpenBook implies a relation with Facebook. (The fact that they work similarly.) So they are making use of their brand. Without authorisation.
Like, really, you can't deny a social platform called "OpenBook" doesn't immediately rings a bell with "Facebook". And no matter if the project is great and ethical, that is problematic.
Also this reminds me "Peertube" is a fucking trash name.
By itself the name "OpenBook" would just imply "Opensource Facebook", is that all the project is about? Are we just trying to emulate large platforms, or are we genuinely trying to build something better upon what they made?
This is why I think oss names based on larger projects are trash. Not only they are legal liability, but they have no innovation and imply there is no innovation from the project.
@NekoSock @trevdev @Ste1lar bottom line: Trademark law is there to protect the public from being misled more than it is to protect corporations. it’s not at all unreasonable to expect a social platform named “openbook” would be misleading. aside from that, trademark law *requires* companies to take action to protect their trademark, or they risk losing the trademark. for facebook, or apple, or disney, or anyone else, it’s not a “dick move”, it’s simply “not optional”, like doing taxes.
Why did Facebook sue OpenBook? To fuck over competition and also to create precedent on their ownership of their trademark. Why do they want to have so much control over it? To be able to fight competition.
Facebook could do an exception for OpenBook if they gave them permission specifically. So then, if they sue another social media for using the word "book" and they bring up the tolerated existence of OpenBook, Facebook could just say they gave them permission unlike this other company.
But really? Giving permission to use a trademark to a competitor just because they're "nice" or "ethical"? Even if Zuck was the nicest person in the world, it's understandable that that's too much to ask.
@trevdev Disregarding the copyright shenanigans, it looks an awful lot like they're just making another ActivityPub.
@bespectacled_fuzz We're ever plagued with competing stands in FOSS, aren't we :/
@trevdev It consistently baffles me how so many people in FOSS are so hostile to the idea of collaboration instead of competition when that's literally the entire point of FOSS, the one and only reason that it exists. That's some impressive doublethink.
@bespectacled_fuzz Freedom is also a big part of FOSS too. Don't like ActivityPub? You don't have to use it. Don't like Okuna the way it is? You can fork it. Freedom does have its downsides.
@trevdev I still think that's the same thing though. If you make something substantially different, you aren't competing anymore because your audience becomes the people who wanted that change. If you're offering the same thing, the only difference is marketing. The competing software implementation is entirely artificial.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!