--- Log opened Fri Jun 17 00:00:54 2022
00:28 < lsneff> Lively day here, huh
01:39 < lkcl> fenn: that's just how Trademark Law works if you want to properly and Lawfully "evade" it.  there must be absolutely no doubt in the person's mind that there's any "confusion"
01:40 < lkcl> for example, making a fork of the Red Hat (tm) Distro, and calling it, "The Distro based on the one from the well-known company with brightly-coloured head-gear for a logo" isn't ok :)
01:40 < lkcl> because people will go "oh i know what that is, you MUST be referring to Red Hat, ha ha, funny joke, but really i KNOW that your Distro is the same"
01:41 < lkcl> and that is Trademark "confusion" (aliasing)
01:42 < lkcl> the really funny/dumb one was why Prince had to rename himself as "The Artist formerly known as Prince", which he kinda got away with :)
01:43 -!- maaku [~quassel@ec2-54-186-10-232.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com] has left #hplusroadmap [https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.]
01:43 < lkcl> muurkha, well, it doesn't prevent *users* from saying "project X is a fork of project Y"
01:44 < lkcl> this is where it gets puzzling because again it's about "confusion": the *developers* and anyone *distributing* it is not permitted to "cause confusion" by explicitly stating "we are distributing project X as a fork of project Y"
01:45 < lkcl> because people will think, "oh, this is exactly the same project, just controlled by different people"
01:45 < lkcl> Red Had *SPECIFICALLY* prohibits you, in their Trademark License, from doing exactly what you say "should be ok"
01:45 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #hplusroadmap
01:45 < lkcl> likewise several other OSS Projects have very specific requirements surrounding what you can and cannot say regarding forks
01:46 < lkcl> > "<muurkha> lkcl: lawsuit threats definitely will not favorably dispose me toward your nmigen"
01:46 < lkcl> right. a couple of things.
01:47 < lkcl> 1) the risks exist regardless of who says anything.  "blissful ignorance of the Law" does not make you immune to it.
01:47 < lkcl> you've almost certainly heard of Judges saying "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse"?
01:47 < lkcl> 2) it is NOT "my" nmigen.  please let us make that absolutely clear.
01:48 < lkcl> i am an *authorized Maintainer* - i am *NOT* repeat *NOT* the Legal Owner nor am i an Authorized Legal Agent of M-Labs.
01:48 < lkcl> i am simply a messenger, here
01:49 < lkcl> as an OSS / Libre Developer of 25+ years i've had to become... above-average-aware of Copyright and Trademark Law
01:51 < lkcl> muurkha, in particular, we're seeking USD 40 million funding to bring into existence a truly Libre/Open and transparent Hybrid 3D CPU-VPU-GPU, to the maximum practical extend possible
01:52 < lkcl> it would be terminally, terminally stupid of me to use something that is Unlawful
01:52 < lkcl> when it comes to Due Diligence, if i have not declared that the fundamental basis of the CPU is utilising HDL that is Unlawful, i can be imprisoned
01:53 < lkcl> it is a *criminal offense* to make a False Declaration on a Due Diligence document, because it's FRAUD!
01:53 < lkcl> it's failing to materially disclose to Investors all of the facts and risks.
01:54 < lkcl> *i* have to know all of this s*** but nobody else in FOSS/HW has to because they're simply not seeking anything near that level of investment
01:54 < lkcl> i'm simply sharing the knowledge and experience with others of what that's like
01:55 < lkcl> muurkha, bottom line: don't shoot the messenger, ok? :)
01:57 < lkcl> nmz787, i hear you. so you know - you've experienced - that there's something very strange going on.
01:57 -!- spaceangel [~spaceange@ip-78-102-216-202.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #hplusroadmap
01:57 < lkcl> nmz787, was it the Blue Screen of Death, or was it the Black one? :)
02:15 < lkcl> nmz787, https://packages.debian.org/sid/xscreensaver-screensaver-bsod :)
02:19 -!- flooded [flooded@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/flood/x-43489060] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:49 < nmz787> lkcl: I understand why you referenced the screensaver stuff
06:49 < nmz787> sorry, "I don't"
06:50 < nmz787> isn't nmigen/migen/amaranth already open-source?
06:50 < nmz787> why is anyone caring about trademark at all?
06:54 < nmz787> I guess I'm in the dark.... googling 'nmigen amaranth lawsuit' shows nothing meaningful
06:54 < nmz787> they copied LICENSE.txt
07:18 < lkcl> nmz787, you mentioned you looked at a windows XP Professional screensaver at a museum
07:18 < lkcl> i wondered if it was the "infamous" Blue Screen of Death screensaver :)
07:18 < lkcl> nmz787, "why does anyone care about Trademarks at all" is a very good question
07:19 < lkcl> maaku, muurkha - one that i am going to answer *in the abstract with some examples* so that you know that i am providing (as a non-lawyer) some *non-threatening information and insight*
07:19 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
07:20 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has joined #hplusroadmap
07:20 < lkcl> i feel compelled to say that because there seems to be a conflation between "someone mentioned something that, really, everyone in FOSS/HW should be aware of but isn't, and there is the *potential* for risk/threat"
07:20 < lkcl> and
07:21 < lkcl> "the person doing the mentioning"
07:21 < lkcl> let's take an example of a Hardware-Software product which involves pluggable "stuff". such as USB.
07:22 < lkcl> let's say that someone creates a USB product which, thanks to the power consumption, is so dangerous that it causes a lithium battery fire and kills someone
07:23 < lkcl> the relatives of the person who has been killed take up a Lawsuit against the USB Consortium for creating the USB Standard
07:24 < lkcl> if there was no Trademark Law, the USB Consortium has absolutely no legal recourse to defend against that wrongful death
07:24 < lkcl> however
07:24 < lkcl> USB *is* Trademarked.
07:25 < lkcl> and as long as the USB Consortium goes after the f****rs that murdered someone because of their blatant disregard for the USB Standard, then the USB Consortium itself would have a legal defense
07:25 < lkcl> does that help explain - with an extreme-case but very much a real-world one - why Trademarks exist?
07:26 < lkcl> nmz787, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9172285/Laptop-battery-chargers-recalled-warning-catch-fire-KILL-unsuspecting-users.html
07:27 < lkcl> you can't use *Copyright* to protect against people basically being murderers
07:28 < lkcl> patents aren't entirely appropriate either
07:28 < lkcl> but a *Trademark* has the specific legal teeth to allow the Trademark *holder* to define what constitutes "bringing the Trademark into disrepute"
07:29 < lkcl> "isn't {insert any project} open source"?
07:30 < lkcl> muurkha, maaku: again, i'm specifically mentioning *in the abstract* some *information* - not repeat not repeat not repeat not IN ANY WAY "making a threat"
07:31 < lkcl> we are having an abstract discussion here, for the benefit of everyone, not "making threats", ok?
07:31 < lkcl> let's take the Rust Foundation Trademark as an example
07:31 < lkcl> "isn't rust/crate already open source?"
07:31 < lkcl> why on earth would the Rust Foundation Trademark the word "rust" and the word "crate"?
07:32 < lkcl> https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/
07:32 < lkcl> notice in their Trademark policy:
07:32 < lkcl>     Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language or the Cargo package manager and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust core team.
07:33 < lkcl> i know why they've done this
07:33 < lkcl> they don't want any "incompatibility" to arise through people making Unlawful modifications
07:34 < lkcl> taking the rust source code and going, "we'll take over from here, we'll either unintentionally or deliberately make some changes which bring the rust language into disrepute"
07:34 < lkcl> because, down-stream, users go "f****g f*****g rust f*****g morons f****d up my code"
07:34 < lkcl> and in the extreme case take out lawsuits against the Rust Foundation
07:35 < lkcl> during the course of legal "discovery" it turns out that, actually, the problem was caused by some moronic distro making *changes* to the source code
07:35 < lkcl> which resulted in complete failure of the users' programs
07:36 < lkcl> but it was *not* the Rust Foundation's "fault", it was the moronic distro
07:36 < lkcl> at that point, the Rust Foundation would be able to counter-sue the moronic distro for Unlawfully violating the Trademark
07:36 < lkcl>   but
07:36 < lkcl>    it's
07:36 < lkcl>      alll
07:37 < lkcl>       open
07:37 < lkcl>       source!!!
07:37 < lkcl> i hear you say :)
07:37 < lkcl> or, more to the point, Moronic-Distro claim, as their defense, "but it's all open source!! we thought because Copyright because Open we could blatantly ignore the Trademark!!!!!!!!!!!"
07:38 < lkcl> newsflash: ya can't.
07:39 < lkcl> now very unfortunately, as an aside, the Rust Foundation's Trademark policy is a major f***-up in its own right
07:39 < lkcl> it violates FOSS principles to such an extreme that it actually prevents and prohibits Distros from applying security patches
07:40 < lkcl> LTS maintenance is also completely impossible *unless* you seek the permission that the Rust Foundation says you must seek
07:40 < lkcl> (debian backports for example)
07:41 < lkcl> and debian is in a unique extreme problematic situation because it has multiple *independent* sub-distros that have absolutely nothing to do with debian themselves
07:41 < lkcl> devuan for example
07:41 < lkcl> *every single one* of those independent sub-distros must *also* seek permission from the Rust Foundation to even add the tiniest of patches, let alone long-term support, backports or maintenance patches
07:42 < lkcl> https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-s-freedom-flaws/11533
07:43 < lkcl> For example, Debian's rustc package currently has dozens of patches 26.
07:43 < lkcl> and they're in direct violation of the Rust Trademark as a result
07:48 < lkcl> basically when there exists a Trademark, the Trademark Holder defines the context in which you can use that word, because by using that word (or image) you are representing that you uphold the standard / integrity of the Trademark Holder
07:49 < lkcl> and if you *abuse* or *ignore* what the Trademark Holder defines that to be, then you are in breach of Trademark
07:49 < lkcl> regardless of whether the source code is "open" or not.
07:51 < lkcl> serious abuses can actually result in Criminal Prosecution. the simplest one is to claim ownership of a Registered Trademark. that results in jail time and a criminal record.
09:57 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:58 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has joined #hplusroadmap
11:10 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:10 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has joined #hplusroadmap
11:29 < muurkha> 08:47 < lkcl> 1) the risks exist regardless of who says anything.  "blissful ignorance of the Law" does not make you immune to it.
11:30 < muurkha> yeah, every day I'm surrounded by people using angle grinders that could cut my arm off, cars that could crush my pelvis, kitchen knives that could slit my throat
11:31 < muurkha> but there's a great deal of difference between my mother-in-law cutting up a chicken with a 300-mm kitchen knife and my mother-in-law saying, "You know, with this kitchen knife I could cut your head off in five seconds."
11:31 < muurkha> 08:52 < lkcl> when it comes to Due Diligence, if i have not declared that the fundamental basis of the CPU is utilising HDL that is 
11:31 < muurkha>               Unlawful, i can be imprisoned
11:32 < muurkha> no, you can't be imprisoned for using a product from someone who loses a trademark dispute over it :)
11:33 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:33 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has joined #hplusroadmap
11:34 < kanzure> he seems to mean some kind of recursive obligation to not rely on or propose to grant agency things that have potential/actual/ongoing legal disputes
11:36 < muurkha> yeah, it seems like it's just a potential legal dispute at this point since apparently nobody has filed a lawsuit yet
11:37 < kanzure> strange the prisons that we create for ourselves, shrug
12:15 < muurkha> I suppose a lot of us here have problems with being overly obsessive about not doing things that are incorrect
12:26 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
12:26 -!- mirage335 [~mirage335@64.79.52.86] has joined #hplusroadmap
13:50 < lkcl> kanzure, yes, kinda. Due Diligence documents are legally-binding, effectively a Contract.
13:51 < lkcl> put bluntly: if you fail to declare something, and the VC makes a decision to invest, then finds out later that you lied (either by omission or by just outright lying), that's Investor Fraud
13:53 < lkcl> it's quite astonishing the things you have to be aware of when having a goal of establishing a $1bn+ valuation company
13:53 < muurkha> yeah, everything is securities fraud now
13:54 < lkcl> ohh i saw the reports today about crypto-currency traders undermining each other. dang
13:54 < lkcl> https://slashdot.org/story/22/06/17/1240205/crypto-traders-turn-against-each-other-in-a-collapsing-market#comments
13:55 < muurkha> without speaking from experience, I think people who have been successful at establishing a US$1B-valuation company have done it by taking a lot of risks, not by being very meticulous about never taking any risks
13:56 < muurkha> you start a company, or work as the officer or board member of a company company, you might get sued for securities fraud.  if the company is around for more than a couple of years, you probably will
13:56 < muurkha> you might win some cases, but you'll probably lose some or settle out of court.  it's part of the package
13:56 < lkcl> i've never been through this before (but i have a business associate who has), but i'd imagine that most company's Due Diligence documents, sent only to VCs, are highly confidential
13:57 < kanzure> unfortunately the vast majority of venture capital doesn't do due diligence and they rely on trust, your character and your persuasive abilities.
13:57 < lkcl> and fall back on what you didn't do right, if the knives have to come out :)
13:57 < muurkha> nothing you send to VCs is confidential, lkcl 
13:58 < kanzure> D&O handles most of the mundane stuff
13:58 < kanzure> (a form of insurance)
14:00 < muurkha> lkcl: running a company is not like being an employee or doing well in school, where if you just do what you're supposed to, then no harm will come to you, and you will get an A
14:01 < lkcl> muurkha, indeed. there are legal responsibilities. fortunately, in the UK, as long as you strictly follow the Law, you're "clear" of liability
14:01 < muurkha> there is no "what you're supposed to do", there are only actions that have effects, and those effects are always unpredictable
14:01 < lkcl> i understand that in the U.S. that's *not* the case: Directors are legally-liable (always) for things that they do under the "umbrella" of a Corporation
14:02 < muurkha> in theory, yeah, but being clear of liability is not the winning state.  making fifty million dollars a year in profits is your winning state
14:02 < lkcl> only 50 million? :)
14:02 < muurkha> you said "a $1bn+ valuation", which is where I got fifty million
14:03 < muurkha> you're free to set higher or lower goals but that's the one you described
14:03 < muurkha> even in the UK you're legally liable for things someone persuades a court you did, even if you didn't do them
14:04 < muurkha> and if your company goes bankrupt people are going to sue you
14:04 < muurkha> if your stock price falls people are going to sue you
14:04 < muurkha> and if your company is profitable people are also going to sue you
14:06 < muurkha> (but being profitable puts you in a much stronger position)
14:07 < muurkha> it's really rare for these lawsuits to make it an unprofitable tradeoff to be a boardmember or an officer.  Qwest is maybe an exception but that's not because they broke the law; it's because they tried to uphold it when the NSA was breaking it
14:10 < muurkha> Enron is another exception, Skilling actually went to jail, but that's a pretty extreme case; not only did their investors lose a lot of money but their malfeasance was extremely blatant
14:10 < muurkha> he got out in 02018
14:13 < lkcl> i remember that
14:19 < kanzure> UK today approved the extradition of a humanoid to arbitrary infinite torture monster
14:22 < superkuh> http://erewhon.superkuh.com/shitsfucked.webm
14:24 < muurkha> oh, today?
14:25 < superkuh> "Non-invasive optogenetics with ultrasound-mediated gene delivery and red-light excitation" https://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X(22)00111-5/fulltext?rss=yes
14:26 < muurkha> anyway whether harm comes to you depends a lot more on whether people are trying to harm you than it does on whether you strictly follow the law
14:27 < muurkha> as with the stock market, there's no guaranteed winning strategy for this stuff because business is to a significant extent competitive
14:29 < muurkha> also, more globally, you are mortal and that means you are going to die inevitably, unless we can fix that quickly enough
14:30 < muurkha> so harm will come to you regardless, there's no point in trying to play it safe
14:30 < superkuh> tldr; adenovirus with red-shifted opsin dna injected into vein, focused ultrasound microbubbles used to precisely disrupt the blood/brain barrier to target brain tissues, tissues express red-shifted opsin ion channels later activated with red light.
14:31 < superkuh> Not exactly tightly targeted, but in the brain it is.
14:31 < muurkha> holy shit
14:31 < muurkha> that's insane
15:53 -!- flooded [flooded@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/flood/x-43489060] has joined #hplusroadmap
15:53 -!- flooded is now known as _flood
15:58 -!- spaceangel [~spaceange@ip-78-102-216-202.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:35 < fenn> i find it incredibly strange that nobody can answer "yes" or "no" to the question "is this legal"? ever
16:35 < fenn> you have to go ahead and do the deed, and then go before a court, before it's decided
16:37 < fenn> at which point, knowing that it was in fact legal or not legal, is now useless to you, because you've done the deed
16:37 < nsh> same deal as when you go to somewhere you haven't been and you don't know if you're going the "right way"
16:38 < fenn> the lost object is always in the last place you look for it
16:38 < nsh> it would be less strange than miraculous if a code of conduct could anticipate all likely conceivable exigencies
16:38 < nsh> such things are evolving
16:40 < nsh> to imagine that they might somehow be complete is to me more strange
16:41 < fenn> welp, nobody's paying me to read about this trademark stuff so i guess i will put it off indefinitely
16:41 < fenn> since it's not fun or enlightening
16:42 < fenn> remember that time when we all had to flee to a new IRC server because someone hijacked the trademark
16:42 < fenn> good thing they trademarked it right?~
16:42 < fenn> wouldn't want anyone to get confused about who owns the trademark
16:50 -!- _flood [flooded@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/flood/x-43489060] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:53 -!- flooded [flooded@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/flood/x-43489060] has joined #hplusroadmap
17:34 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:06 -!- flooded is now known as _flood
20:37 -!- juri_ [~juri@178.63.35.222] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
--- Log closed Sat Jun 18 00:00:55 2022