It would be inaccurate for me to say I don’t get angry; it’s just takes a lot for me to really let rip. The following situation makes my blood boil so much that in writing this I am having to be very careful steps not to break a lot of my self imposed rules around rants. Please feel free to add appropriate swear words and angry gesticulations while reading.
Joann from Horowhenua has put out the following call:
Plea for help from Horowhenua Library Trust
Horowhenua Library Trust is the birth place of Koha and the longest serving member of the Koha community. Back in 1999 when we were working on Koha, the idea that 12 years later we would be having to write an email like this never crossed our minds. It is with tremendous sadness that we must write this plea for help to you, the other members of the Koha community.
The situation we find ourselves in, is that after over a year of battling against it, PTFS/Liblime have managed to have their application for a Trademark on Koha in New Zealand accepted. We now have 3 months to object, but to do so involves lawyers and money. We are a small semi rural Library in New Zealand and have no cash spare in our operational budget to afford this, but we do feel it is something we must fight.
For the library that invented Koha to now have to have a legal battle to prevent a US company trademarking the word in NZ seems bizarre, but it is at this point that we find ourselves.
So, we ask you, the users and developers of Koha, from the birth place of Koha, please if you can help in anyway, let us know.
For those of you who don’t know [which can’t be many] the background, in the late nineties the Horowhenua Library Trust decided not to go down the traditional path of changing their LMS and developed open-source product called Koha. This was given to the world and is now used widely internationally. A few years ago a company in the US called PTFS/Liblime attempted to hijack Koha and turn it into their proprietary LMS. They have also sort sought to claim ownership of the name Koha.
Sadly it looks like they are going to be successful. Now we have the ridiculous situation that they will deny the very people who originally developed Koha the right to use that name. What is even more stupid is that the Maori Advisory Board to the Trademarks people has approved this. Yep, they are happy to give a Te Reo term to a US company as a trademark.
UPDATE: Your can donate to HLT’s legal funds here. Link removed as no longer seeking funds.
UPDATE 2: You can also send cheques to Horowhenua Library Trust, 10 Bath St, Levin. re: Koha Trademark Fund.. See above.
UPDATE 3: This will be featured on Radio NZ tomorrow.
UPDATE 4: Liblime response;
PTFS/LibLime Granted Provisional Use of Koha Trademark in New Zealand
Bethesda, MD – November 23, 2011 PTFS/LibLime, a provider of software and service solution to libraries, has been granted provisional use of a trademark for the use of the term Koha as it applies to Integrated Library Software (ILS) in New Zealand.
When PTFS/LibLime purchased LibLime in March, 2010, one of the assets acquired was the trademark on the term Koha as it applies to ILS software in the United States. PTFS/LibLime has held that trademark in trust, purposefully choosing not to enforce it in order to insure that no individual, organization, or company would be prohibited from promoting their services around Koha in the United States.
Another one of the assets acquired in the purchase of LibLime was an application for the trademark of the term Koha as it applies to ILS software in New Zealand. That application has now been accepted. PTFS/LibLime will hold that trademark in trust as well, and will not enforce it in order to insure that no individual, organization, or company will be prohibited from promoting their services around Koha in New Zealand.
PTFS/LibLime is prepared to transfer the trademark to a non-profit Koha Foundation with the provision that the Foundation hold the trademark in trust and not enforce it against any individual, organization, or company who chooses to promote services around Koha in New Zealand. PTFS/LibLime encourages a direct dialog with Koha stakeholders to determine an equitable solution for the disposition of the trademark that serves the best interests of the libraries who use Koha.
About Koha Koha is an open development ILS application first conceived in the late 1990’s in New Zealand. In the twelve years that the source code has been available, the application has been enhanced by hundreds of individuals, organizations, libraries, and companies around the world. With all of this enhancement, much of it in the last five years, the application has evolved into a fully-functional ILS capable of supporting most of the workflow needs of a library. The Koha software is owned by no company and various versions of the application are freely available to libraries throughout the world.
About PTFS/LibLime PTFS is an industry leader in content and knowledge management solutions, deploying its ArchivalWare digital content management system to institutions throughout the commercial and government sectors. Founded in 1995, PTFS provides software and service solutions to libraries through the LibLime Division, and offers complete content conversion solutions from analog to digital. PTFS also specializes in meeting library personnel staffing requirements and metadata keying services. For more information, contact us at http://liblime.com or http://ptfs.com or http://archivalware.net
UPDATE 5: Joann posted this update;
Who would have thought that one little blog post on a Tuesday morning would have generated so much interest and debate and support.
Horowhenua Library Trust have been bowled over by the generosity of a global community who are as concerned as we are at the PTFS New Zealand trade application to register the mark Koha in relation to software.
We have received hundreds of emails offering support for fighting the ‘good fight’. I haven’t quite replied to them all yet – but I am trying . The press have provided balanced coverage with Radio NZ, TV1 and TV3 all reporting the story pretty accurately here, generating much discussion in Maori and mainstream media forums.
We have accumulated donations of about $12k, mostly through $20 and $50 donations from individuals around the globe (including many Americans) and the generosity of the legal profession offering free representation is amazing.
We have accepted the services of Sacha Judd, Andrew Matangi & John Glengarry from Buddle Findlay, assisted by Rochelle Furneaux, who have agreed to work pro-bono for us (bless them all I say). They have been guiding us for the last few days and are busy preparing a objection to the PTFS / Liblime application should one be necessary.
We believe we are well placed now to mount a strong legal challenge and we think we have enough in donations to cover filing fees, document costs and other disbursements. While It goes completely against my nature to turn down donations to Horowhenua Library Trust, in all conscience we should stop the fundraising drive at this stage. Rest assured if is necessary to challenge the PTFS application all the way to the High Court then we may well be coming back cap in hand!
PTFS have issued a press release saying they are willing to hand the NZ Koha trademark over to a non-profit representing the Koha community. That organisation is the Horowhenua Library Trust, elected by the Koha global community, and we would be delighted to accept that offer and add the NZ Koha trademark to the store of other Koha community property we currently hold in trust ie domain names and trademarks. It would be a very simple matter for PTFS to assign the existing application to Horowhenua Library Trust and we invite PTFS to do so. The Library Trust has never stopped any Koha user or developer or vendor from carrying out their business. Our track record over the last 12 years of releasing the Koha code and supporting the Koha community to go about its business unimpeded is exemplary and we have no intention of ever changing that approach.
No non paypal option for payments?
I only know the Paypal link… I will check with @jransom if there are other ways…
You can send cheques to Horowhenua Library Trust, 10 Bath St, Levin. re: Koha Trademark Fund…
I wouldn’t spend a dime/minute on keeping that name. Change the name, make the situation / history know, and move on.
Ask LibreOffice how they did it.
There’s a couple of things stopping that; Kiwis don’t like to let bullies win, and we don’t like foreign countries usurping our indigenous language…
Obviously that’s not uniformly the case, or the NZ trademark office would have nixed this from the start. Good luck with your effort!
It worked so well for the “Radler” beer trademark issues.
New Zealand Big Business just doesn’t give a fuck. If there’s someone out there with more money, they win. End of story.
I hate that this is true.
Fabian, it’s really not a great idea. You might think the name itself holds much meaning, but it has a great meaning in Te Reo Maori, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koha_%28custom%29
Would you let your native language be trademarked by Americans? Would you expect a company to trademark “Cadeau” ? Or something equally as important?
And that’s besides the point that LibLime in this instance should have no right over the name at all anyway.
When you start using a name, you better be prepared to defend its use. That’s how copyright and trademarks work – not that I agree with that.
Defending the name against trademarking is one battle, keeping it as the name of the project, another one, IMO. Perhaps the local government or cultural institutions should be involved ?
Yeah, Fabian, edited out as too close to personal abuse for my liking – Michael
No, this is just a simple case of some American company thinking that because they’ve put a bit of effort – or bought the effort – into branding a word/phrase, that they own it, regardless of the origin. They may have legal success, but they’ll be buying a scrap.
Thanks for the comment Robin, but don’t go there on the personal front please. We like to focus on the issues here 🙂
This situation isn’t the same as what was faced with LibreOffice.
I think this is a bit different to OpenOffice. There, OpenOffice was a name whose first user was acquired (Sun having itself acquired StarDivison to get most of the software, wasn’t it?).
Here, an incomer (PTFS) cannot acquire one of two original users of the name (HLT) and appears to be unwilling to share with them, so seems to be trying to oust them with trademark law. If Koha isn’t safe for its first user, how can any FOSS project name ever be safe for any user?
…and *protect the new name so this doesn’t happen again*.
This is like nailing everything down so it isn’t stolen.
Is it so unreasonable to expect that people don’t steal things?
It seems so… It’s quite a sad state of affairs really..
>They have also sort to claim ownership of the name Koha.
Did you mean to say “sought”?
Yes… My excuse is rage against the machine 😆
You seem to be rather light on facts, here. Have you bothered talking to anyone at PTFS/LibLime? LibLime has for many years possessed the trademark for “Koha” in the US and has not attempted to deprive anyone at all from using the name in any country whatsoever. And much like the HLT community, LibLime also publishes Koha releases as open source: https://github.com/liblime/LibLime-Koha
If HLT was so concerned about the name, why did they allow Katipo—the NZ company they contracted originally to write Koha—to *sell* (as in, for profit) their material and intellectual property related to Koha to LibLime in the first place?
The pertinent facts to this instance is Liblime applied for the trademark in NZ just before PTFS bought them in early 2010. PTFS continued to pursue the application post acquisition.
Clay,
According to the documentation at http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4005:s4vufu.2.2, the US trademark was filed in 2008 by LibLime. It was not a part of the transaction with Katipo. Just to be clear on facts.
Who can be contacted at PTFS/LibLime to speak about this? I only ever have contact with either you or Jane Wagner… I would assume the best contact would be someone in another department, but I don’t know.
Correct. The US TM was a later transaction. The IP assets I’m referring to are the koha.org domain and the Katipo source code copyrights.
> The IP assets I’m referring to are the koha.org domain
I’d loved to have the exact terms of the contract. At least, i’m sure Joshua, previous LL owner has said many times he was considering to be acting as a stewart for koha.org
> and the Katipo source code copyrights.
Correct. But it’s “valueless”, as it’s OpenSource. And the copyright is shared with *many* others. First of them being … me/BibLibre, that started long before LibLime existed (http://www.ohloh.net/p/koha/contributors)
If they own the copyright for the source code they don’t have to abide by the GPL copyright that everyone else does. They are free to distribute proprietary modifications without releasing their source code.
Even Liblime themselves don’t contend they own the copyrights to all the code. So yes if they took out all the changes made by others to anything they had initial copyright of, then took about 450k lines of other code out. Then what was left, sure they could change the license.
“Correct. The US TM was a later transaction. The IP assets I’m referring to are the koha.org domain and the Katipo source code copyrights.”
As Paul points out, the source code was already released under GPLv2 or later, and copyright was held by many people.
What Liblime really bought was the support contracts that Katipo had, and was able to hire 3 Koha developers that formerly worked at Katipo.
And from what I hear, for a small amount.
“As Paul points out, the source code was already released under GPLv2 or later, and copyright was held by many people.
What Liblime really bought was the support contracts that Katipo had, and was able to hire 3 Koha developers that formerly worked at Katipo.
And from what I hear, for a small amount.”
That is my understanding as well..
Clay, you also must remember that the trademark had been taken by LibLime, “in the name of the community, just for defensive reasons, don’t worry about that, we’re not evil”.
I / BibLibre did the same thing in Europe.
Except things went wrong with LibLime, and now PTFS/LibLime. On my side (BibLibre), the european trademark has been transfered to HLT more than 2 years ago (for free, of course), as I promised.
So, please, don’t forget some important events.
PS: I still have some mails in my mailbox where Joshua said he was considering LibLime acting as a “stewart” on behalf of the community.
I’m guessing here because he and I never talked about it in detail, but from what I can tell, Josh’s idea of what constituted “the community” varied quite a bit from your own. He saw many members of the existing community as liabilities to Koha rather than assets, with poor development skills and even poorer self-management. I had disagreed with the latter until I saw the off-the-rails hostility displayed to PTFS after the LL acquisition. After that, I could only agree.
I know you evaluate the situation very differently, Paul, and I respect your perspective and your persistence in spite of the vitriol your efforts to improve Koha often receive. But this spin I keep hearing from many vaguely-informed parties that PTFS/LibLime is some sort of Righthaven-esque copyright troll mega-corp that’s come out of nowhere to usurp the rights of the innocent Koha community is just too much. We’re a small company having a bad, long, complicated disagreement with other small companies.
> I’m guessing here because he and I never talked about it in detail, but from
> what I can tell, Josh’s idea of what constituted “the community” varied quite
> a bit from your own.
Well, Josh also said things like “Koha was not working before Koha 3.0”. Why is there so many libraries still using it ?
In fact, I couldn’t believe it, but it was true: josh thought things not made by him were wrong.
And, frankly, if you look at C4::Search, that was 90% josh-made, it’s dirty code, I can’t find another word
We will probably never know if there was a plan from the beginning (I tend to think no, others tend to think yes), and, to say the truth, I don’t care.
What I just see is that everybody has choosen the “community path” except PTFS/LL. And yes, “the community” sometimes is a pain. Yes, i’m sometimes upset by some reactions I get to my proposals. But that’s the game with OpenSource ! From diversity comes light.
I also tend to think you can’t be right against everybody else.
I can also assure you that in France, most of our libraries want us (BibLibre) to go the community way. Thus, they don’t depend on us. If we fail, they can change their support without changing their ILS.
PS: how many libraries have switched from Koha-LL to Koha-someone else this year ? how many have switched from Koha-someone else to Koha-LL ? Could they all be wrong ? ( answer: libwebcat says something 90 – 0 )
Sure, C4::Search is messy, but when compared to huge swaths of database-driven code that doesn’t even use primary keys or display any apprehension of even 1NF, you have to admit it looks sophisticated.
If that’s the libwebcat stat, they’re way off. And quite frankly, many of our customers chose us (or stick with us) in part because of the dysfunctional issues in the community. I agree that the sheer force of numbers is on your side; you have more participants. But this is not a democracy.
I don’t remember when Clay joined LibLime, so maybe he doesn’t know this, but Josh saw us as such “liabilities” that people like me and Chris Cormack (who he employed at one point!) were updating the koha.org website directly without his approval and he asked us to sign a statement drafted by LibLime to oppose PTFS’s dodgy registration of various Koha-related domain names. And we supported LibLime then, despite pressure from PTFS’s CEO to stand aside and leave LibLime isolated, including phone calls late in the night.
I feel that the attitude of the community to PTFS didn’t really change much after its purchase of LibLime, but LibLime’s attitude to other developers changed a short time before that, locking us out of koha.org, which is now used for a single-source fork. I wonder if Josh was preparing LibLime for purchase, but it doesn’t really matter.
The community continues and happily, as well as offering excellent support to real Koha users, that means PTFS employees can’t rewrite history to claim anyone other than LibLime’s Josh led the initial dispute with PTFS.
Well, the community and web.archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20090209054335/http://koha.org/about-koha/news/nr1233245950.html
“I know you evaluate the situation very differently, Paul, and I respect your perspective and your persistence in spite of the vitriol your efforts to improve Koha often receive. ”
So much vitriol the Koha community elected Paul release manager. I really think you perhaps focus on the fact of Liblime trying to Trademark Koha in NZ.
All of the excuses given to date, even if they were true, in no way provide a valid reason for trying to trademark Koha in New Zealand
“So much vitriol the Koha community elected Paul release manager.”
With so much competition for the role, it was a real surprise.
> With so much competition for the role, it was a real surprise.
If ppl were hating me so much, why did none of them apply against me ?
because they plan to give me the ball and prevent me to play with it ? Do you like conspiracy theories “9-11 being organised by CIA” or things like that ? I don’t, so i’ll consider it’s just a troll.
Frankly, i’ve better push some patches (and it will be 7PM here, so, I think i’ll head to my loved wife and -4- boys)
It was a trollish response to a trollish comment, and I mean nothing against you by it, Paul. I’m sure you’ll do a good job as RM.
[Comment nesting seems rather shallow, so this doesn’t fit in the hierarchy properly.]
Clay: “We’re a small company having a bad, long, complicated disagreement with other small companies.”
I think that this highlights another underlying problem here. PTFS/LibLime appear to see this whole thing as “LL bought Katipo’s stuff, so we own Koha – the other support companies are trying to get shared ownership and deprive us of our rights and profits”. Or something like that.
But Free Software is as much “owned” and produced by the users as by any companies that provide commercial support for it. With Koha, many libraries and librarians around the world contribute to Koha and have done since day one in 1999 (6? years before LibLime’s creation). They own the project as much as you do.
Basically, you’re a small company that has picked a fight with every library that uses Koha and isn’t your customer (plus some who are).
The US Koha trademark and the koha.org domain were held by Liblime for them. And you locked them out of their website, and started spreading FUD. That’s why you’ve lost so many customers and staff members.
Nesting was set for three levels. It’s a bit late but I have changed it to five.
Never too late – now I can respond to that awful comment from MJP about nesting! 😉
😆
“LL bought Katipo’s stuff, so we own Koha…”
This is not accurate at all. I know it’s more comforting to frame this as “big, stupid US corporation hurt nice, little Kiwi library” rather than the more contorted reality. We recognize that no one owns Koha. It is the result of a decade of collaborative effort from people all over the world. PTFS/LibLime has never contended otherwise. As I’ve pointed out several times already, we have owned the US trademark for years now; we don’t enforce exclusive use of the name in any way. The simple truth is that we are depriving them of *nothing*. Would HLT do the same for us if they held these trademarks? Would they let LibLime continue to use the Koha name for our software?
What has happened is that that past collaboration has broken down. Neither side wants to give up the name, and both sides hold claim to it in some form.
HLT hold the EU Trademark as Paul pointed out, and have never tried to stop you using the word Koha in the EU.
This they didn’t apply for, but was transferred to them.
HLT had not ever applied for a TM until after Liblime applied for the one in NZ. It’s all there plain to seen on the IPONZ site.
So lets stick to the main issue, Liblime/PTFS are trying to trademark Koha in NZ. HLT never tried to trademark Koha in the US. Liblime did. Easily verifiable facts, lets leave all your conjecture aside.
“several times already, we have owned the US trademark for years now; we don’t enforce exclusive use of the name in any way”
That’s because it’s highly likely that you’d lose it if you tried to enforce it. (Against other users of Koha if we understand it. If SirsiDynix came out with a new product called Koha that would be a different story.)
The reality is that the trademark would have been challenged some time ago if it wasn’t so prohibitively expensive to do so.
“Neither side wants to give up the name, and both sides hold claim to it in some form.”
It’s not exactly an even split. One company walked away from EVERYONE ELSE – it’s on you to rebrand yourself after that.
“we have owned the US trademark for years now; we don’t enforce exclusive use of the name in any way. The simple truth is that we are depriving them of *nothing*”
LibLime held ownership of a domain that was being used by a community, and then suddenly locked everyone out of it and used began using it for their own corporate marketing.
Now LibLime is trying to obtain a trademark in a country that it doesn’t do any business in, for a term that is used by a number of companies and goverment and private organisations. And it says “we’re not going to *do* anything with it – why are you all getting uptight? You can trust us!”
The cultural reference will be lost on those outside New Zealand, but this is worthy of a Tui billboard.
Don’t forget that once a trademark is granted, it will be lost if it is not defended. Once they get it they will be forced to bring legal action on anyone infringing or risk losing their trade mark.
Try talking to the FSF (http://www.fsf.org) and/or the SFLC (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/).
[…] Dan Andrews via ‘@TheDanAnimal. ★ Michael J. Parry, ‘The Exemplar Of Stupid: Koha Vs Liblime Trademark‘ The Room of Infinite Diligence, 22 November 2011; and Joann Ransom, ‘Plea for help […]
”
There’s a couple of things stopping that; Kiwis don’t like to let bullies win, and we don’t like foreign countries usurping our indigenous language…
”
I understand your sentiment, things like that happens here on Brazil, one funny thing is that we have a fruit that only grows on the Amazonia Rain Forest and the locals make some candies with that fruit.
But some company from Japan now owns the name of that fruit (can’t remember right now).
My blood also boiled while running that, things like that on the american legislation make the world a much more complicated place to live.
good luck.
could you email me ? i can’t find any contact info anywhere… and would like to intro you to EFF, maybe Lessig … and some others who might be able to help.
I am not the one you need to contact. You can find a contact details for Joann here: http://kete.library.org.nz/
I should say that since I personally know several of the people involved here in New Zealand my view will probably be biased.
That being said I don’t see ANY reason for PTFS/Liblime to pursue a trademark application here.
You don’t think LL should protect their ability to use the name Koha? HLT would take it away from us in a heartbeat if they could. Try mentioning LibLime in any HLT-community setting and the first thing you’ll hear is “That’s not *real* Koha” followed by diatribes against how LL/PTFS has no right to use that name. Check out their IRC logs and mailing list archives. LibLime/PTFS has held the US trademark for years and has not tried to stop anyone from using the name. Given their divisive language and constant posturing, I do not feel confident that HLT would offer the same treatment if the roles were swapped. Given these current circumstances and assuming functional relations with HLT are indeed irreconcilable, what would possibly motivate PTFS to give up on an already in-progress TM application?
“You don’t think LL should protect their ability to use the name Koha? HLT would take it away from us in a heartbeat if they could.”
The reality is that LibLime/PTFS has left the community and taken the code in their own direction. The honest thing to do would be to give your own divergent project its own name and brand – see examples such as Dragonfly BSD. Why not just call it “LibLime” – it’s already got reasonable brand recognition.
“LibLime/PTFS has left the community ”
I think it should be pretty apparent that LibLime does not recognize “the community” as the authority that you appear to. Apparently the NZ trademarks authority doesn’t recognize it much, either.
“I think it should be pretty apparent that LibLime does not recognize “the community” as the authority that you appear to.”
I think that pretty much sums up the problem. Open-source is all about community. When Koha was first released it was released to the community.
And it still is: https://github.com/liblime/LibLime-Koha
“The code itself is unimportant; the project is only as useful as people actually find it.” — Linus Torvalds
That’s interesting conjecture. But HLT had never initiated a trademark application in NZ. Not until Liblime did one in NZ.
Also, the community is not just HLT, even if you seem to think it is. It is bizzare to me that a US company has taken it on themselves to single out and target a small NZ library, that developed the product they now monetize.
Clay, perhaps you could explain where you perceive the “right” to use the name Koha arises with respect to LL/PTFS? Surely the project originator has first claim on the name?
What I never understand is why LL/PTFS think it should be useful to trademark the name of an open source software? To protect them from what?
The “ability to use the name Koha” isn’t given by a trademark on it. Koha is the name of an open source project, Koha is a maori word. LL/PTFS could use that name without trademark, am I right?
There’s difference between the “ability” and the “right”. Everyone who use Koha has the “ability”, what LL/PTFS want is the “right”. Why?
To be honest I think a trademark is the “ability” to prevent others “to use the name Koha”. This is why everyone think LL/PTFS is wrong.
“I think it should be pretty apparent that LibLime does not recognize “the community” as the authority that you appear to.”
No shit.
As Michael says, Free Software is developed collaboratively by a community of people. You’ve stopped collaborating with everyone else. You’re welcome to do that – it’s a corollary of Stallman’s four freedoms, and an integral part of Free Software – but in going your own way you’re not doing the “Koha” that everyone else is doing. So choose a different name, everyone will wish you well, and you’ll find that all of the hostility will eventually evaporate.
Interesting discussion. Clay, do you work for PTFS/Liblime, or have you done so in the past?
Yes, I started working at LibLime in early 2008 and continue to work at PTFS/LibLime.
Just donated $50US to your legal efforts. I hope you win this. We cannot afford a world where verbs, verbs in common usage no less, become copyright.
I’ve run a copy of this at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1111/S00208/blogwatch-mulitnational-seeks-to-hijack-koha-nz-trademark.htm – I’m guessing that’s okay?
You will get no objections from me 🙂 Thanks
[…] Of Stupid: Koha Vs Liblime Trademark.” Blog. The Room of Infinite Diligence, November 22, 2011. https://diligentroom.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/the-exemplar-of-stupid-koha-vs-liblime-trademark/. Radio New Zealand. “Maori Trademark Advisory Committee has limited powers.” Radio New Zealand, […]
For many years I promoted and used Moodle. I was an early adopter. When it became time to sell my hosting and support skills I was unable to use the word ‘Moodle;, because Moodle is TM. It means that in order to use the word Moodle you have to become a Moodle Partner. I figured that this would be no problem, given my dedication to FOSS values, skills and experience. What a suprise I had when my application to join the partnership got a ‘Dear John, NO, but you may become a subcontractor’. reply. I understand the difficulties of earning money with FOSS but the unofficial insider info that I got, was this: ‘there are too many Moodle Partners in the UK already’. what a pile of poo.
Pretty gutted by my own TM experience.
I am deeply concerned by LL/PTFS behaviour. As far as I can see they are not behaving in the spirit of FOSS. Just the fact that they continue to drag this issue out is wasting our precious resources that could be better spent coding rather than arguing. For them to require the community to raise legal fees is despicable. Just drop the application already. KOHA == Gift, How can this be made any more clear?
Here’s PTFS/LibLime’s press release about the matter: http://www.liblime.com/ptfsliblime-granted-provisional-use-of-koha-trademark-in-new-zealand
The TL;DR is: this was inherited—by surprise—from the previous owners. We don’t know their intentions then, but we know ours now. We’ll hand the NZ trademark off to a non-profit (including HLT) who agrees to continue our practice of protecting non-exclusive use of the name.
Clay, it is great that PTFS/Liblime are willing to hand over the TM to HLT. (Who the community elected previously to hold community property as they are a not-for-profit Trust).
Would they be willing to sign the application itself over, what would HLT need to do to make that happen?
I’m sure everyone wants this to go away as soon as possible
‘We’ll hand the NZ trademark off to a non-profit (including HLT) who agrees to continue our practice of protecting non-exclusive use of the name’
wow, this is fantastic news!
congratulations to PTFS/Liblime for doing the right thing
why is the PR not mentioning HLT but “a Koha Foundation” ? (/me a little bit suspicious… too much suspicious ?)
I think it’s fair to be suspicious. Foundations usually give special status to their founders, so PTFS may be trying to restart through their old, rejected foundation idea – I think the last time it was suggested, PTFS were to get 40-60% of the votes, but I’ve not checked my notes.
A foundation was a bad idea then and it’s still a bad idea now. If PTFS would consider a one member one vote association or an independent trust, let’s talk. If PTFS wants to try to control the community by proxy, let’s not: the trademark shouldn’t be valid anyway.
Clays comment seems to suggest they are considering handing it over to HLT, which is the community elected place to hold property for now. If that is true and they transfer the application over that can only be good.
Ah, but I read above that HLT is included as a possibility: great!
That is good news. I look forward to seeing this resolved positively 🙂
Here is a link to a report on Radio New Zealand this morning;
[audio src="http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20111124-0753-small_library_gets_global_backers_in_trademark_battle-048.mp3" /]
I found it interesting to hear why the Maori Advisory Board approved the application [near the end]
[…] found out on Tuesday via a colleague* that the project is now facing a legal threat in the form of a trademark […]
[…] learned a few hours ago of a press release and statement from a LibLime/PTFS staff member that states their intention to transfer the TM to the Horowhenua Library Trust. However, as of this […]
It would very simple for PTFS to transfer their application over to HLT. They did it omce already when it was transferred from Liblime to PTFS. Would be a gracious solution.
Could you go into a bit more detail about the previous transfer of the application? PTFS did this once already?
Also, as the spokesperson for the HLT, could you guarantee that HLT will not attempt to control use of the word “Koha” as assigned to the open source library application?
The transfer was from Liblime to PTFS, happened June 2010 according to the records at IPONZ
Also check out http://koha-community.org/update-2/
Also, I couldn’t find where the trademark had been transferred from LibLime to PTFS in 2010. I did find where it was “Abandon After Warning” by Horowhenua Library Trust on October 12, 2011. It’s Trade Mark Number 822685 if you want to see the document.
Ok . Its not actaully that hard to find, select the PTFS application, choose view selected and their it is
Heh, more coffee needed *there* it is
You will find Joann’s response here: http://koha-community.org/update-2/
> Also, as the spokesperson for the HLT, could you guarantee that HLT will
> not attempt to control use of the word “Koha” as assigned to the open
> source library application?
mmm… i’m not sure I understand what you mean or imply here. Could you explain/give more details ?
[…] found out on Tuesday via a colleague* that the project is now facing a legal threat in the form of a trademark […]
[…] to an update posted to koha-community.org, a press release and statement from a LibLime/PTFS staff member suggests an intention to transfer the trademark to the HLT. Liz Rea on behalf of the community […]
Self-preservation is the operative keyword here for PTFS/Liblime, either way you understand it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/22/2252238/small-oss-library-project-battles-us-corporation
Seems like a spectacularly bad way to go about trying to achieve it.
[…] people are up in arms! How can they do this? How can a US company trademark a Maori word? How can they do this to the […]
[…] people are up in arms! How can they do this? How can a US company trademark a Maori word? How can they do this to the […]
The real issue here is how could a US company take software that is stipulated tyo be “open source”, and then trademark the name of that software … I thought that the open source licence stipulated that anyone using the software AGREED to the open source conditions of use …. which is that it is freely available to the public …. how could the name of that software then be trademarked? I would suggest that LibLime is in breach of the copyright agreement ….
Nope, Trademark and Copyright are 2 totally different things. There is absolutely nothing in the GNU GPL version 2 license that says anything to do with Trademarks.
Trademarking the name also does nothing to stop the availability of the software. In my opinion there are a lot of things that make this trademark attempt a bad idea, but in no way does it breach the license.
Agreeing with chris.
imo, the only thing this trademark could result in would be something like “you can’t do business using the name ‘Koha'”. In this case we would rename the software.
The only problem -and it’s a major one, at least one worth the fight- would be that Koha is a famous name in the ILS world. Explaining ppl that “xxx was formerly a well-known-ILS-that-I-can’t-name-because-of-the-trademark” is a *big* pity.
That’s why the TM should be discarded from PTFS hands, and put into HLT hands.
Clay, the PTFS press release (http://www.liblime.com/ptfsliblime-granted-provisional-use-of-koha-trademark-in-new-zealand) says that “PTFS/LibLime encourages a direct dialog with Koha stakeholders to determine an equitable solution for the disposition of the trademark that serves the best interests of the libraries who use Koha.”
We the Koha stakeholders have not heard from them. Is the direct dialog supposed to happen in comments on blog posts?
At this point, despite various parties’ pretensions to the contrary, no trust representatives have written or called to inquire about a transfer. I’ll let our web developers know that people are having a hard time finding the “Contact” link that’s on every page on our website. In the interim, you can direct any trust representatives you know of to go to the phone numbers, email address, and form entries on http://www.liblime.com/contact. That is, if they don’t already have more personal contact information.
Charming reply. I assumed from the sentence “PTFS/LibLime encourages a direct dialog with Koha stakeholders” to mean that PTFS/LibLime would actually act to engage in direct dialog with Koha stakeholders. Or perhaps we need to contact our web developers too?
You can call or write, too. Lots of individuals have done so already, though almost universally they have been angry Kiwis who have never before even heard of Koha. “Stakeholder” in this usage is more addressing peer support/dev companies and Koha-related trusts, but I imagine helpful, diplomatic correspondence from individuals would be welcome, too.
Skipping over the issue of long distance telephone bills 😉 what do you think about the idea of donating the Koha trademark to a Māori language trust, like Kia Ata Mai Educational Trust or the Māori Language Commission? Isn’t at least half the issue over the fact that a Māori word is being used as a commodity? And since a language trust isn’t interested in ILS software, there shouldn’t be any question of fairness or control.
I would encourage any trust who thinks they could serve as appropriate stewards of this trademark to contact PTFS/LibLime. Our intent is to ensure the name “Koha” in the context of ILS software remains available for everyone to use. I’m not the one to make the decision, but my understanding is that any non-profit trust who is willing to grant such license for continued free use is up for consideration. I personally think a language/cultural trust who is an otherwise disinterested party would be a fine recipient.
Oh come on Clay! PTFS knows how to contact HLT. They have discussed other matters with them in the past. Does PTFS really think anyone believes that the only reason PTFS hasn’t started transfers is because no-one from HLT has used the “contact” link on PTFS’s website?
This looks to me like an attempt to trick someone into implicitly acknowledging that PTFS’s registrations are legitimate by requesting a transfer.
If PTFS is serious about assigning the registrations to an independent non-profit, it should start the approach and announce it has done so.
That’s a bizarre theory. We have an approved application. There’s no need to make convoluted efforts to legitimize that fact. It’s a fact that is easily verified.
When a non-profit wants, say, a grant, they don’t wait for someone to come knocking on their door to hand it to them; they write an application for it, detailing their purpose and establishing their worthiness. It doesn’t matter if in their own minds they’re the keenest of the keen. Only in rare circumstances do benefactors pick recipients who didn’t specifically apply for something. I think it’s a fair guess that this is not one of those occasions.
PTFS started the process by sending out a press release inviting applicants to come forth. If we had a specific recipient in mind, you would have read a very different press release, if one had been released at all.
Yes, PTFS has a registration, but I think we’re still at a time when others can object. I don’t know how the NZ system works, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was frowned upon for an organisation to claim something was ill-gotten while simultaneously asking for it to be donated to it. So maybe they’re getting advice on that question, which might take a few days.
Also, I don’t know for sure how non-profits work in NZ, but NZ and UK share a lot of cultural heritage and the usual way for a donation to a UK non-profit is that the donor approaches the non-profit. (So here, PTFS would apprach HLT.) When non-profits approach donors, it’s nicknamed “charity mugging” or “chugging”. Tha’s really unpopular and there are frequent calls for various types of it to be outlawed.
Applying for grants is something different. That usually involves many applicants filling out application forms for a share of a big fund (not only one indivisible asset) and being heard all at once or periodically. I don’t think the g-word has been mentioned before, so this is not a grants process, nor should it be.
I feel PTFS would do best to show good faith by donating the registration to HLT. It’s clearly what tons of people would like to see, based on the donations to HLT for their campaign fund and the comments in lots of places around the web. PTFS sulking because they’ve not got mail instantly is well weak.
So when a benefactor says “I’m looking to give x away to a proper owner. Please let me know if you think you’d be a proper recipient,” it’s considered rude or inappropriate in the UK to actually do what is asked? That’s a very strange predicament, then.
I fail to see how you and Owen stamping your feet and making up bizarre conspiracy theories about the situation amounts to PTFS “sulking.” We haven’t complained at all about HLT’s lack of application. You have. And if no one applies for the app, I imagine we’ll just keep it and serve as proper stewards for it the same way we have the US trademark. If HLT’s aggressive legal posturing has limited its options and precluded them from applying, that’s unfortunate. It would be a pity if they were being advised by an attorney more interested in angling for publicity with a big trial rather than finding a peaceable, fast, cheap outcome for everyone. But everyone’s got their own priorities, I suppose.
(For some reason, I cannot post this as a reply to Clay’s latest silly comment that ends “everyone’s got their own priorities”)
I think what usually happens if someone announces “I’m looking to give x away to a proper owner” is that people suggest proper owners (which almost everyone suggests HLT in this case) and then the donor makes the donation. It would be a bit unusual for a non-profit to go “me! me! me!” and it’s just plain bizarre for a donor to expect them to beg for it.
I feel you have complained about HLT’s lack of application, in a strange sort of passive-aggressive we-would-give-this-if-only-they-ask-nicely you-have-only-them-to-blame manner when it’s blindingly obvious what the community wants.
As for “we’ll just keep it and serve as proper stewards for it” – firstly, that’s dangerous because PTFS’s Koha business might be sold, as has happened to other nicer companies, leaving the trademark in even worse hands; and secondly, Liblime/PTFS’s idea of proper stewardship of the website was rather different to everyone else’s. So more likely proper bar stewards.
Koha is free so why having a copyright for the logo ?
But your right
Alexandre, sadly, most of the world currently automatically creates copyright for any work, which rests with the creator or their employer. Also, many of the Free and Open Source Software methods rely on licensing that copyright in a particular way… copyright does not necessarily restrict anyone’s freedom. The non-copyright commons is called the public domain and it’s not growing as quickly as the field covered by copyright.
However, I feel this problem is yet another attempt by a Johnny-come-lately to gain illegitimate trademark control over a FOSS project.
This confusion between copyright (which applies to source code) and trademarks (which applies to the trading names of organisations) is an excellent example of the reasons Free Software founder Richard Stallman discourages the use of the meaningless term “Intellectual Property”:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
It’s standard practice for a free code software project, or an open source developer community to have a trademark on their name and logo. This means that whichever version of the code is issued by the organisation that holds the trademark is the “official” version. If an organisation wants to issue a different version of the code to the “official” one, they need to fork it (as LibreOffice did with the OpenOffice code) ie release it under a new name.
This appears to be the case with Koha and LibLime (and now PTFS). If PTFS want to release software under the name Koha, it should be the “official” version approved by the non-profit which originated the project, chose the name, and paid for the original code development ie HLT. If PTFS want to release their own fork of the software, they need to choose a new name to do it under.
As it stands, it appears they are holding trademarks on a name they didn’t choose (as a US company it’s unlikely they would have heard the word ‘koha’), for a codebase they didn’t originate, so they can leverage the goodwill earned by the open source developer community that has emerged around the HLT’s original Koha.
Follow or fork, Clay. What’ll it be? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Trademark decision is in, and the Liblime/PTFS mark is rejected
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/230631/koha-trademark-case-won-by-nz-trust
As an early U.S. adopter of Koha with PTFS, we contributed a significant amount of money for development which helped PTFS get off the ground. The promise was made that this code would be contributed to the “community”.
Unfortunately, it never was. I believe that this would be grounds for some kind of legal action against the company for renegging on the contract. My Director disagreed. Needless to say, we left PTFS because of poor service and fear of being on a forked branch of code that is problematic. Also, needless to say, we regret signing on with them in the first place, but there was no other support vendors then.
I think it would be great if the two sides could somehow come together and become one again, but I do not hold out for this ever happening. Man’s nature leads me to believe that this is an impossibility.
Hi Scott,
I assume you mean no US based support companies (other than Liblime) eh? There were a lot around the world by then.
It is a shame what happened, but ultimately Koha itself emerged a lot stronger.
As for reconciling, the reality is that there is 5 years of divergent code, it would be a massive job to try to merge that. I think the only thing that would nice to have would be the old domain back.
Can you describe the feature that you believe was never published? PTFS has published all of its LibLime Koha code—including the work we did for your library—all the way up through the recent 4.16 release. 4.18 will be published shortly. If you think we missed a piece, let me know so we can take a look. The initial spate of development release within which you would find your library’s work can be found at https://github.com/ptfs/Koha-PTFS/branches?merged=1
In regard to merging code bases, PTFS has no more ambition toward a common base with the HLT code than the HLT folks do. The projects differ considerably, with different decision-making processes, priorities, and approaches toward achieving those priorities. However, all that we’ve published is still GPL licensed and available to be picked from for use by whomever under those terms.
Hi Clay,
I know that you know it, but for other readers: there’s a *huge* difference between “publish” and “contributed”.
Contributing mean submitting to the project, following and answering questions.
Publishing is only “well it’s here, take it”.
Participating to an Open Source project is not a only matter of publishing, it’s about contributing.
And Yes, I agress with chris C. comment : the fork is too far now, impossible to merge both versions.