zsh-users
 help / Atom feed
* Opensource.com Zsh article
@ 2019-09-17 22:29 Bart Schaefer
  2019-09-18  0:39 ` TJ Luoma
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2019-09-17 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zsh Users

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 253 bytes --]

This popped up in my news feed today:

https://opensource.com/article/19/9/getting-started-zsh

The article treats a few settings as defaults that I think might not be so
in all installs (autocd is one glaring example) but is otherwise reasonably
good.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-17 22:29 Opensource.com Zsh article Bart Schaefer
@ 2019-09-18  0:39 ` TJ Luoma
  2019-09-18 16:06   ` Ray Andrews
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: TJ Luoma @ 2019-09-18  0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zsh Users

1) The author of the OpenSource.com article seems to be unaware that
zsh is included by default in macOS (and has been for years), although
of course there's no harm in installing newer versions using the
method he recommends.

2) I don't know how many folks outside macOS tech circles saw this,
but it's a good series of articles about moving to zsh. Hopefully
we'll get some good articles from folks who are interested in zsh now
that it will be the default shell in macOS starting with Catalina (and
there are suspicions that other shells may be removed in the
not-too-distant future).

https://scriptingosx.com/moving-to-zsh/

TjL

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18  0:39 ` TJ Luoma
@ 2019-09-18 16:06   ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-18 16:13     ` Jérémie Roquet
  2019-09-18 22:37     ` Martijn Dekker
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-18 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-17 5:39 p.m., TJ Luoma wrote:
> https://scriptingosx.com/moving-to-zsh/
>
> TjL
>
It astonishes me that the reason for the switch is claimed to be a 
licensing version detail.  I understand that there's no one left in the 
cockpit at bash, would that not be a better reason?  Even now I can't 
quite accept that something as essential to computing as the shell 
should be treated so casually.  So it's zsh from now on, but even then 
all this will rest on the shoulders of our few intrepid volunteers?   
Dunno, if that's the way the world works then that's the way the world 
works but it is very strange.  Sorta like going to the local nuclear 
power plant and finding that there's no  one there but a few volunteers 
and one day no one will even know how the place works but the city will 
still be expecting safe, reliable electricity.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 16:06   ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-18 16:13     ` Jérémie Roquet
  2019-09-18 16:37       ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-18 22:37     ` Martijn Dekker
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Jérémie Roquet @ 2019-09-18 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Zsh Users

Le mer. 18 sept. 2019 à 18:07, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> a écrit :
> all this will rest on the shoulders of our few intrepid volunteers?
> […]
> it is very strange.  Sorta like going to the local nuclear
> power plant and finding that there's no  one there but a few volunteers
> and one day no one will even know how the place works but the city will
> still be expecting safe, reliable electricity.

It's kind of what happens with other critical pieces of
infrastructure, like gnupg and openssl, unfortunately…

-- 
Jérémie

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 16:13     ` Jérémie Roquet
@ 2019-09-18 16:37       ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-18 16:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-18 17:17         ` Roman Perepelitsa
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-18 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-18 9:13 a.m., Jérémie Roquet wrote:
>
> It's kind of what happens with other critical pieces of
> infrastructure, like gnupg and openssl, unfortunately…
>
So I've heard.  I have no direct experience of any of that tho. You'd 
think that with Linux being so central to so many things now that 
there'd be some sort of consortium of companies and governments and 
universities to look after the essential software, even to pay the key 
people.  Imagine Peter and Bart, etc. getting a dollar an hour for their 
work vs. flat nothing.  Linus himself is payed.  And I wonder about the 
next generation.  When was the last time a new recruit learned how zsh 
works down in the engine room?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 16:37       ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-18 16:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-18 17:05           ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-18 17:17         ` Roman Perepelitsa
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2019-09-18 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Andrews, zsh-users

Ray Andrews wrote on Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:37 +00:00:
> On 2019-09-18 9:13 a.m., Jérémie Roquet wrote:
> >
> > It's kind of what happens with other critical pieces of
> > infrastructure, like gnupg and openssl, unfortunately…
> >
> So I've heard.  I have no direct experience of any of that tho. You'd 
> think that with Linux being so central to so many things now that 
> there'd be some sort of consortium of companies and governments and 
> universities to look after the essential software, even to pay the key 
> people.

Like this one? —

https://www.coreinfrastructure.org/

> Imagine Peter and Bart, etc. getting a dollar an hour for their 
> work vs. flat nothing.  Linus himself is payed.  And I wonder about the 
> next generation.  When was the last time a new recruit learned how zsh 
> works down in the engine room?

*nod*

Cheers,

Daniel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 16:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2019-09-18 17:05           ` Ray Andrews
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-18 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-18 9:54 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> Like this one? —
>
> https://www.coreinfrastructure.org/

Yeah.  It wasn't going to be me who first noticed the problem ;-)



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 16:37       ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-18 16:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2019-09-18 17:17         ` Roman Perepelitsa
  2019-09-18 19:23           ` Ray Andrews
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Roman Perepelitsa @ 2019-09-18 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Zsh Users

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:38 PM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
> On 2019-09-18 9:13 a.m., Jérémie Roquet wrote:
> >
> > It's kind of what happens with other critical pieces of
> > infrastructure, like gnupg and openssl, unfortunately…
> >
> So I've heard.  I have no direct experience of any of that tho. You'd
> think that with Linux being so central to so many things now that
> there'd be some sort of consortium of companies and governments and
> universities to look after the essential software, even to pay the key
> people.

This does happen. Google has dedicated teams with dozens of engineers
working on Linux and LLVM. Bram Moolenaar is still working on vim and
getting paid to do so. It just so happens that neither bash nor zsh
are mission-critical for large companies. The fact that zsh is
replacing bash as the default shell on macOS will go unnoticed for the
laymen and experts alike. The former either don't use shell or won't
notice the difference; the latter know how to install their shell of
choice. There may be bugs in bash and zsh due to underfunding but
these are much harder to exploit than bugs in the kernel or javascript
engine.

It's not necessarily fair that some open-source contributors get to
enjoy working on their favorite project and getting paid to do it
while others have to fund this activity from their own pocket despite
having as much if not bigger impact on the world. My point is that
large corporations aren't acting irrationally. They generally allocate
engineering resources where the payoff is the highest. If no one is
sponsoring bash and zsh, it's because paid engineers' time (a scarce
and expensive commodity!) generates higher yield elsewhere.

One could argue that the benefits of a better shell accrue to everyone
while funding has to come from the pocket of a single company when the
funding decision is made. So we have a sort of the tragedy of the
commons. This argument is getting weaker by the day when a handful of
the largest tech companies eats an increasingly larger share of the
world economy. Google, Apple, Microsoft or Amazon can certainly afford
to spend money open source projects that make everyone better off. And
they do, roughly according to the marginal benefit-per-dollar-spent.

Roman.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 17:17         ` Roman Perepelitsa
@ 2019-09-18 19:23           ` Ray Andrews
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-18 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-18 10:17 a.m., Roman Perepelitsa wrote:
> And
> they do, roughly according to the marginal benefit-per-dollar-spent.
>
> Roman.
>
That sounds like a pretty fair summary of the situation.  What about the 
universities tho?  All that time going into BSD and such -- those guys 
seem to have some sense of the commons beyond their own next quarterly 
report.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 16:06   ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-18 16:13     ` Jérémie Roquet
@ 2019-09-18 22:37     ` Martijn Dekker
  2019-09-19  1:43       ` Ray Andrews
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Martijn Dekker @ 2019-09-18 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

Op 18-09-19 om 18:06 schreef Ray Andrews:
> On 2019-09-17 5:39 p.m., TJ Luoma wrote:
>> https://scriptingosx.com/moving-to-zsh/
>
> It astonishes me that the reason for the switch is claimed to be a 
> licensing version detail.

There's nothing astonishing about that. It's been well known for years 
that Apple won't touch the GPLv3 with a ten foot pole. That's why all 
the GNU stuff in macOS is stuck on the last GPLv2 versions, which are 
all really old now, so they're slowly replacing it all.

>   I understand that there's no one left in the 
> cockpit at bash, would that not be a better reason?

What makes you think that? If you read through the bug-bash list it's 
pretty obvious that Chet is still firmly in charge and actively 
developing bash as always. It had a new major 5.0 release fairly 
recently as well, which make it run scripts quite a lot faster.

>   Even now I can't 
> quite accept that something as essential to computing as the shell 
> should be treated so casually.  So it's zsh from now on, but even then 
> all this will rest on the shoulders of our few intrepid volunteers? 

Apple has plenty of in-house manpower and expertise to take over zsh 
development if the need should ever arise. They've done that sort of 
thing before (CUPS comes to mind). Meanwhile perhaps they'll contribute.

- M.

-- 
modernish -- harness the shell
https://github.com/modernish/modernish

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-18 22:37     ` Martijn Dekker
@ 2019-09-19  1:43       ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-19 16:08         ` Daniel Shahaf
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-19  1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-18 3:37 p.m., Martijn Dekker wrote:
>
>>   I understand that there's no one left in the cockpit at bash, would 
>> that not be a better reason?
>
> What makes you think that? If you read through the bug-bash list it's 
> pretty obvious that Chet is still firmly in charge and actively 
> developing bash as always. It had a new major 5.0 release fairly 
> recently as well, which make it run scripts quite a lot faster.

Chet himself informed me of that.  But it seems he's been a one man show 
for 26 years!   It seems a bit of a fragile situation.


> Apple has plenty of in-house manpower and expertise to take over zsh 
> development if the need should ever arise. 

How would that work in practice?  I mean a 'takeover' wouldn't seem to 
be desirable but a contribution of resources  might be. Who has the last 
word in these things?



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19  1:43       ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-19 16:08         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-19 17:32           ` Ray Andrews
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2019-09-19 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Andrews, zsh-users

Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 01:43 +00:00:
> On 2019-09-18 3:37 p.m., Martijn Dekker wrote:
> > Apple has plenty of in-house manpower and expertise to take over zsh 
> > development if the need should ever arise. 
> 
> How would that work in practice?  I mean a 'takeover' wouldn't seem to 
> be desirable but a contribution of resources  might be. Who has the last 
> word in these things?

Anyone can send patches.  If someone from Apple starts sending many
good patches, they'll get commit access in the ordinary way.

Taking over the project would require the consent of the existing
maintainers.  However, anyone can fork the project at any time for any
reason, provided they rebrand their fork (= not call it "zsh").

Apple can also help in other ways, for example, by assigning someone
to monitor zsh-users@ and answer questions there, to help with the
increased workload once their users are on zsh.

Cheers,

Daniel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19 16:08         ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2019-09-19 17:32           ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-19 18:04             ` Daniel Shahaf
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-19 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-19 9:08 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> Anyone can send patches.  If someone from Apple starts sending many
> good patches, they'll get commit access in the ordinary way.
>
> Taking over the project would require the consent of the existing
> maintainers.

Yeah that's the point.  So our folks keep the reins.  But I trust this 
is a matter of etiquette?  How could consent really be enforced?



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19 17:32           ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-19 18:04             ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-19 19:40               ` Ray Andrews
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2019-09-19 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Andrews, zsh-users

Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:32 +00:00:
> On 2019-09-19 9:08 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
> > Anyone can send patches.  If someone from Apple starts sending many
> > good patches, they'll get commit access in the ordinary way.
> >
> > Taking over the project would require the consent of the existing
> > maintainers.
> 
> Yeah that's the point.  So our folks keep the reins.  But I trust this 
> is a matter of etiquette?  How could consent really be enforced?

What's your attacker model?  I.e., what do you fear Mallory¹ might do
without our consent, that we need to prepare to counter?

Cheers,

Daniel

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob#Cast_of_characters

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19 18:04             ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2019-09-19 19:40               ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-19 22:33                 ` Daniel Shahaf
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-19 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-19 11:04 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:32 +00:00:
>> On 2019-09-19 9:08 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>
>>> What's your attacker model?  I.e., what do you fear Mallory¹ might do
>>> without our consent, that we need to prepare to counter?

No attacker, I'm just curious as to how such a scenario would work out.  
Were it the case that some commercial entity decided to take over a 
project against the wishes of the traditional maintainers, how would it 
be resolved?  I hardly expect this to happen with zsh but such a thing 
is conceivable.  I guess GPL makes it unlikely that an open source 
project could ever be privatized, still someone as big as Apple could be 
determined to have their way vis a vis some change or other.  Just curious.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19 19:40               ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-19 22:33                 ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-19 22:59                   ` Bart Schaefer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2019-09-19 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ray Andrews, zsh-users

Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:40 +00:00:
> On 2019-09-19 11:04 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:32 +00:00:
> >> On 2019-09-19 9:08 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What's your attacker model?  I.e., what do you fear Mallory¹ might do
> >>> without our consent, that we need to prepare to counter?
> 
> No attacker, I'm just curious as to how such a scenario would work out.  
> Were it the case that some commercial entity decided to take over a 
> project against the wishes of the traditional maintainers, how would it 
> be resolved?  I hardly expect this to happen with zsh but such a thing is
> conceivable.

As I said, the answer to your question depends on what your question
actually means to you.  What _exactly_ is it that you think the
commercial entity might do in order to "take over" a project?

For example, if your scenario is that Elvis would push commits to zsh's
repository without permission, the answer is that he can't.  He doesn't
have a username and password for that repository.  That's just like
saying he can't get to your living room because he doesn't have the key
to your front door.

If that's not the scenario you were concerned about, do clarify.

> I guess GPL makes it unlikely that an open source project could ever
> be privatized, still someone as big as Apple could be determined to
> have their way vis a vis some change or other.  Just curious.

First of all, zsh is not licensed under the GPL so the provisions of GPL
are irrelevant.

Second of all, GPL is a copyright license, not a system of governance.
It gives you some rights to the code, but doesn't determine how that
code is produced.  For example, it's perfectly possible for a GPL'd
project to be (or become) governed by a BDFL.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19 22:33                 ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2019-09-19 22:59                   ` Bart Schaefer
  2019-09-20  0:06                     ` Ray Andrews
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2019-09-19 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: Ray Andrews, Zsh Users

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:34 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
> As I said, the answer to your question depends on what your question
> actually means to you.  What _exactly_ is it that you think the
> commercial entity might do in order to "take over" a project?

I believe Ray means that Apple copies the code and begins publishing
it as "zsh", using their size and influence to declare that theirs is
now "the" authoritative version of the shell.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-19 22:59                   ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2019-09-20  0:06                     ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-20  1:01                       ` TJ Luoma
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-20  0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-19 3:59 p.m., Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:34 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> As I said, the answer to your question depends on what your question
>> actually means to you.  What _exactly_ is it that you think the
>> commercial entity might do in order to "take over" a project?
That's exactly what I'm asking.
> I believe Ray means that Apple copies the code and begins publishing
> it as "zsh", using their size and influence to declare that theirs is
> now "the" authoritative version of the shell.
Yes, some scenario like that.  Anyway it was only the most general 
question, I hadn't meant to dive into some hard situation.   But as an 
example, you can see that if  Apple did decide that zsh would become an 
essential component of their universe, that they'd want complete control 
of it, and thus be tempted to more or less brush you and the crew 
aside.  No malice it's just that you can't imagine Tim Cook asking you 
guys for permission to change something.  I wonder how that would play 
out.  Meanwhile bash rests on a single pair of shoulders; good health to 
Chet ;-)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20  0:06                     ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-20  1:01                       ` TJ Luoma
  2019-09-20  3:51                         ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-20 13:33                         ` Daniel Shahaf
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: TJ Luoma @ 2019-09-20  1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Zsh MailingList

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:07 PM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote:

> No malice it's just that you can't imagine Tim Cook asking you guys for permission to change
> something. I wonder how that would play out.

The history of Apple's previous interactions with open source projects
would suggest this is unlikely.

KHTML is probably the biggest example, and they contributed to it for
awhile, but when they wanted to make their own version they forked it
and gave it a different name (WebKit).

I think they have a pretty good track record.

TjL

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20  1:01                       ` TJ Luoma
@ 2019-09-20  3:51                         ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-20 13:33                         ` Daniel Shahaf
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-20  3:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-19 6:01 p.m., TJ Luoma wrote:
>
> KHTML is probably the biggest example, and they contributed to it for
> awhile, but when they wanted to make their own version they forked it
> and gave it a different name (WebKit).
>
> I think they have a pretty good track record.
>
> TjL
>
Cool.  Good to know.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20  1:01                       ` TJ Luoma
  2019-09-20  3:51                         ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-20 13:33                         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-20 13:51                           ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-20 21:51                           ` Bart Schaefer
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2019-09-20 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TJ Luoma, Zsh MailingList

TJ Luoma wrote on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:01 +00:00:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:07 PM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> 
> > No malice it's just that you can't imagine Tim Cook asking you guys for permission to change
> > something. I wonder how that would play out.
> 
> The history of Apple's previous interactions with open source projects
> would suggest this is unlikely.
> 
> KHTML is probably the biggest example, and they contributed to it for
> awhile, but when they wanted to make their own version they forked it
> and gave it a different name (WebKit).

To elaborate on that: if Alice maintains an open source product and Bob
forks it, trademarks law requires that Bob rename the product before he
may distribute it.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20 13:33                         ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2019-09-20 13:51                           ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-20 21:51                           ` Bart Schaefer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-20 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-20 6:33 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> To elaborate on that: if Alice maintains an open source product and Bob
> forks it, trademarks law requires that Bob rename the product before he
> may distribute it.
Ok, so that's the culture on the issue.  But would a lawsuit be required 
or would Big Brother handle it in house?
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20 13:33                         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2019-09-20 13:51                           ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-20 21:51                           ` Bart Schaefer
  2019-09-20 22:08                             ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-21  8:21                             ` Daniel Shahaf
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2019-09-20 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: TJ Luoma, Zsh MailingList

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:34 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
> To elaborate on that: if Alice maintains an open source product and Bob
> forks it, trademarks law requires that Bob rename the product before he
> may distribute it.

That would be true if there were actually a trademark on "zsh", but there isn't.

Copyright law might come into play because of the license terms, but
because zsh assigns copyrights on the individual files to the
individual contributors, it would be a serious headache to try to
bring a coherent claim.

This is probably one of the factors behind other OSS projects deciding
to join consortia like the Apache Foundation or Mozilla.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20 21:51                           ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2019-09-20 22:08                             ` Ray Andrews
  2019-09-21  8:21                             ` Daniel Shahaf
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Ray Andrews @ 2019-09-20 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-users

On 2019-09-20 2:51 p.m., Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> This is probably one of the factors behind other OSS projects deciding
> to join consortia like the Apache Foundation or Mozilla.
I see.  So they gain a bit of support that way, and maybe even some 
legal backup.  Mozilla certainly seems to have 'presence'.  I know what 
I'd be doing with my loot if I was a billionaire, that's for sure.
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

* Re: Opensource.com Zsh article
  2019-09-20 21:51                           ` Bart Schaefer
  2019-09-20 22:08                             ` Ray Andrews
@ 2019-09-21  8:21                             ` Daniel Shahaf
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2019-09-21  8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: TJ Luoma, Zsh MailingList

Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 20 Sep 2019 21:51 +00:00:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:34 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >
> > To elaborate on that: if Alice maintains an open source product and Bob
> > forks it, trademarks law requires that Bob rename the product before he
> > may distribute it.
> 
> That would be true if there were actually a trademark on "zsh", but there isn't.
> 

There isn't a _registered_ trademark, that is correct — but "zsh" is a
trademark nevertheless.

Trademarks are established through use in commerce.  So long as we
continue to offer a thing called "zsh" for download, "zsh" is our
trademark.  Registration can help but is not required.

> Copyright law might come into play because of the license terms, but
> because zsh assigns copyrights on the individual files to the
> individual contributors, it would be a serious headache to try to
> bring a coherent claim.

I'm not sure that is correct — but IANAL so I can't speak with any certainty.
What I can say is that copyright law and trademark law aren't the same thing,
and that zsh doesn't "assign" copyrights on individual files — it doesn't have
those rights to begin with.

> This is probably one of the factors behind other OSS projects deciding
> to join consortia like the Apache Foundation or Mozilla.

I can't speak of Mozilla, but the Apache Software Foundation doesn't
require copyright assignment; they only require a copyright _license_
(an ICLA [1]).  They do register trademarks for some of their project
names, but not all.

Cheers,

Daniel

[1] https://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html#cla

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-17 22:29 Opensource.com Zsh article Bart Schaefer
2019-09-18  0:39 ` TJ Luoma
2019-09-18 16:06   ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-18 16:13     ` Jérémie Roquet
2019-09-18 16:37       ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-18 16:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-09-18 17:05           ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-18 17:17         ` Roman Perepelitsa
2019-09-18 19:23           ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-18 22:37     ` Martijn Dekker
2019-09-19  1:43       ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-19 16:08         ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-09-19 17:32           ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-19 18:04             ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-09-19 19:40               ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-19 22:33                 ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-09-19 22:59                   ` Bart Schaefer
2019-09-20  0:06                     ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-20  1:01                       ` TJ Luoma
2019-09-20  3:51                         ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-20 13:33                         ` Daniel Shahaf
2019-09-20 13:51                           ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-20 21:51                           ` Bart Schaefer
2019-09-20 22:08                             ` Ray Andrews
2019-09-21  8:21                             ` Daniel Shahaf

zsh-users

Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/zsh-users

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.zsh.users


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox