Namecoin logo licensing

drllau
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

Re: Namecoin logo licensing

Post by drllau »

phelix wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:07 am
ACK

IIRC I have already transfered all rights to the logo to the Namecoin project. If not, I hereby do it.
Legally speaking, there should be a distinction between collective (trade)marks and certification marks. A collective mark (which is probably closer to the existing situation) is where a logo/brand is owned by an "organisation" (nominally NameCoin project) where the "members" typically identify themselves with a level of quality or service, origin, or other characteristics. The problem is that without a legal identity, it would be impossible to enforce the non-usage, for example if a member abused the protocols and was banned/removed as a member. You'd have to resort to courts where common law and thus commercial practices are recognised. Also if it need to be properly lifted up to the point where a certain "quality" is attested by the display of the logo, a register of members or other ways of evidence that the desired association is valid (cf eWallet-scams).

A certification mark is probably the next step where there is a formal set of standards or metrics and the logo can be used by anybody who complies with the standards defined. Currently NameCoin is more a philosophical/ethical "intent" in desiring total decentralisation of the internet with removal of the last central resource with associated tax (aka ICANN et al). In theory the namespace is infinite, in practice we are limited by human memory and some minor technical hurdles in IP address range (until IPv6 is more prevalent). If there is a formal legal owner (anyone who can bring suit in multiple jurisidictions eg EFF) and the certification mark has some value (and can derive side revenue as value-add service).

One way of moving down that 2nd path is to keep the 2D logo for collective mark and have say a 3D version for the subset willing to comply with a more stringent aspect. Give that human time is limited, ideally you'd have some easy way of proving such, whether embedded link, commitment to ongoing compliance, external audit or whatever. Then licensing can be a more formal process with a certain level of assurance.

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Namecoin logo licensing

Post by biolizard89 »

drllau wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:29 am
phelix wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:07 am
ACK

IIRC I have already transfered all rights to the logo to the Namecoin project. If not, I hereby do it.
Legally speaking, there should be a distinction between collective (trade)marks and certification marks. A collective mark (which is probably closer to the existing situation) is where a logo/brand is owned by an "organisation" (nominally NameCoin project) where the "members" typically identify themselves with a level of quality or service, origin, or other characteristics. The problem is that without a legal identity, it would be impossible to enforce the non-usage, for example if a member abused the protocols and was banned/removed as a member. You'd have to resort to courts where common law and thus commercial practices are recognised. Also if it need to be properly lifted up to the point where a certain "quality" is attested by the display of the logo, a register of members or other ways of evidence that the desired association is valid (cf eWallet-scams).

A certification mark is probably the next step where there is a formal set of standards or metrics and the logo can be used by anybody who complies with the standards defined. Currently NameCoin is more a philosophical/ethical "intent" in desiring total decentralisation of the internet with removal of the last central resource with associated tax (aka ICANN et al). In theory the namespace is infinite, in practice we are limited by human memory and some minor technical hurdles in IP address range (until IPv6 is more prevalent). If there is a formal legal owner (anyone who can bring suit in multiple jurisidictions eg EFF) and the certification mark has some value (and can derive side revenue as value-add service).

One way of moving down that 2nd path is to keep the 2D logo for collective mark and have say a 3D version for the subset willing to comply with a more stringent aspect. Give that human time is limited, ideally you'd have some easy way of proving such, whether embedded link, commitment to ongoing compliance, external audit or whatever. Then licensing can be a more formal process with a certain level of assurance.
AFAICT your scenarios assume that there's some centralized legal entity who has legal ownership of the Namecoin brand in some way. Zcash has been heavily criticized by Peter Todd for going down that route, as it means that anyone who can coerce that central entity will gain the ability to attack people who develop Namecoin-related software. Generally I agree with Peter on this.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

jonasbits
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:47 pm
os: linux

Re: Namecoin logo licensing

Post by jonasbits »

I feel the same way, no centralized risk is better ( don't trust, verify! )
My Namecoin address: NC3HGHk527xuWZBgMdGJ2GxjpRSw8D4oA6

drllau
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

Re: Namecoin logo licensing

Post by drllau »

jonasbits wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:41 pm
I feel the same way, no centralized risk is better ( don't trust, verify! )
It's like buying a bicycle helmet and not wearing it (cf Ripple's consistent in promoting XRP). Make look cool but not going to save your life. Lets go back to why trademarks were adopted into law. Because of passing off, pretending to offer a good/service using the reputation of a more well-established vendor. So if some n00b were to offer namecoin wallets as phishing bait, under DCMA you need a clear ownership (not that it stopped youtube) so only valid or authorised people can complain, initiate takedowns or at extremis, take legal action. That has always been the problem with collective works, it is too hard for a single contributor to participate in normal dispute resolution process.

The decentralised angle can be addressed ... IMHO the risk (LIKELIHOOD x consequences) of not being sued (or coerced) is less likely (its the cover for operating code, not owner of the domainname per se) to happen than someone abusing the namecoin logo. Just because it is badged with Intel inside, a govt is not going to go after the tech upplier to censor the journalist laptop.

PS ... anyone seen how libre library inside minecraft is circumventing VPN bans?

Post Reply