diff --git a/_sidebar.md b/_sidebar.md index 8663ae5f..b3250243 100644 --- a/_sidebar.md +++ b/_sidebar.md @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ * [Version Control](/best_practices/version_control.md) * [Code Quality](/best_practices/code_quality.md) * [Code Review](/best_practices/code_review.md) - * [Licensing](/best_practices/licensing.md) * [Communication](/best_practices/communication.md) * [Testing](/best_practices/testing.md) * [Releases](/best_practices/releases.md) @@ -19,15 +18,6 @@ * [R](/best_practices/language_guides/r.md) * [C and C++](/best_practices/language_guides/ccpp.md) * [Fortran](/best_practices/language_guides/fortran.md) -* [Intellectual Property and Licensing](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/intellectual_property_overview.md) - * [Executive summary](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/summary.md) - * [About the Law](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/about_the_law.md) - * [Trademarks](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trademarks.md) - * [Trade Secrets and Patents](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trade_secrets_patents.md) - * [Database Rights](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/database_rights.md) - * [Copyright](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/copyright.md) - * [Software Licenses](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/software_licenses.md) - * [Examples](/intellectual_property_and_licensing/examples.md) * [Contributing to this Guide](/CONTRIBUTING.md) * NLeSC specific * [Chapter Owners](/chapter_owners.md) diff --git a/best_practices/licensing.md b/best_practices/licensing.md deleted file mode 100644 index 357a234c..00000000 --- a/best_practices/licensing.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,51 +0,0 @@ -# Licensing - -Without a license, all [rights](../intellectual_property_and_licensing/copyright.md) are at the author of the code or data, and that means nobody else can use, copy, distribute, or modify the work without consent. A license gives this consent. - -## Software licences - -Software licenses are explained in [The Turing Way](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/licensing/01/softwarelicenses.html) chapter. - -## Apache 2 license - -[Apache 2 license](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) - -The Apache License version 2.0 is the default choice for licensing software developed at the Netherlands eScience Center. Other licenses can be used in special cases, e.g. when we add to existing software that already has a different license (see below), or if there are commercial partners that require different licensing. - -The formal text of the licence is here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html -An informal explanation of what that means is here: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2 - -### License grant - -Each source file in your program or library should start with the following copyright statement in a comment block at the top (but underneath a shebang line if present, for technical reasons): - - Copyright Netherlands eScience Center and - Licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0. See LICENSE for details. - -The same notice should be somewhere in your README file, which should also contain an overview of dependencies and which licenses they are under. For ``, you should list all years in which changes were published, so if you started in a private repository in 2015, opened it up in 2016, and did the final commit in 2017, `` should be 2016, 2017. For our "standard" projects, the default is to share the copyright between the eScience Center and the PI(s) institutions, but other arrangements may have been made. So check that, and make sure everyone is represented under ``. - -### LICENSE - -The actual license of the code is stored in the *LICENSE* file. -Github can add this file automatically when you create a new repository, or you can [add it via the repositories Github page](https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-license-to-a-repository/). - -### NOTICE - -The NOTICE file is the Apache License' way of dealing with attributions. If you have any dependencies that are distributed under the Apache License, and you redistribute them (in either binary or source code form), then you must include the original NOTICE file(s) as well. If you have any attribution requirements of your own, you can add them in your own NOTICE file. If you do not distribute the dependencies, but only e.g. list them in a requirements.txt, then you do not need to include their NOTICE files in your program. - -NOTICE should contain the following text, adapted with the product's name and copyright dates: -``` - [PRODUCT_NAME] - Copyright [XXXX-XXXX] The Netherlands eScience Center, [PROJECT_PARTNERS] - - This product includes software developed at - The Netherlands eScience Center (https://www.esciencecenter.nl/) - For the [PROJECT_NAME] project -``` - -If any of the software dependencies has a NOTICE file, its contents shoud be appended below. -Read more in the [ASF licensing how-to](http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html). - -## Modifying existing software - -If you are modifying a file written by someone else, which already has its own copyright statement and Open Source license grant (possibly with a different license), then that existing statement and the grant must be kept. If you've added more than a trivial fix, add the first of the two lines above to the copyright statement, but keep the existing license grant. In these cases, we simply release our contributions under the same license the other contributors have chosen, as this avoids a lot of unnecessary complexity. If the software is proprietary, ask for advice first. diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/about_the_law.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/about_the_law.md deleted file mode 100644 index d884918e..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/about_the_law.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12 +0,0 @@ -# About the law - -Laws are documents that describe what you are allowed to do in a particular jurisdiction. They are made by (hopefully democratically elected) legislators, and they're written for humans to interpret. Laws can be very specific on some points, but often also leave certain things vague. Sometimes this is even done on purpose, when the legislators decide that they cannot foresee all the cases that will develop in the future. - -In case of some conflict, either between society and some individual or company in it, or between companies or individuals, some interpretation of how the law applies to this specific case has to be made. This is done by a judge. Judges will take into account the text of the law itself, the (recorded) discussions that took place when it was made, and rulings by other judges in similar cases. By doing the latter, they try to keep things consistent and therefore fair. - -The collected rulings of earlier cases are together known as case law ("jurisprudentie" in Dutch). Over time, the vague areas in a law are filled in by case law. However, this is a slow process, and it is always incomplete: if the law is vague and there is no case law yet, or no sufficiently similar case, then a gray area remains. - -As a result, it often makes more sense to think about legal issues in terms of probabilities and risk, rather than in terms of truth. This means that decisions on how to act given the legal situation always have a policy component to them. How important is what you want to do, and how much risk are you willing to take? - -Of course, there is always an ethical side to these kinds of decisions as well: something may be strictly speaking legal, but that doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do. While it may be impossible in some cases to say with absolute certainty whether something we want to do is legal, we should always make sure that it's the right thing to do. - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/copyright.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/copyright.md deleted file mode 100644 index 30bae8f9..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/copyright.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,41 +0,0 @@ -# Copyright - -Copyright covers original works of authorship (works of art or science, as Dutch law puts it), like books, plays, films, music and photographs, provided there was some creativity involved in making them. Copyright also covers collections, like anthologies or coffee table books with nicely arranged photographs. - -The owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to copy that work, and to make derivative works. - -A derivative work is itself a work, but one that depends on another work. A translation of a book is an example, because translating is itself a creative act, but the translation also derives from the original. Subtitles for TV series or a new, updated edition of a textbook are also examples of derivative works. - -## Getting copyrights - -In any country that has signed the Berne convention on copyright, all works of authorship are automatically protected by copyright as soon as they are made. Since 1989, when the US signed the Berne convention, this goes for all major countries, but before that, there were countries where it was necessary to explicitly claim copyright on a work, by adding the © symbol or a phrase like "All rights reserved". Other than in Iraq, Somalia, North Korea and a few other such countries, this is now no longer needed, and we don't do it. - -Copyrights can be transferred, e.g. by selling them or giving them away. In many countries, including in Europe, there are some rights that always remain with the author however, such as the right to be recognised as the author and to have your reputation protected with regards to the work. - -A very common way in which copyright ends up in the hands of someone other than the author is by work for hire: if you make something as part of your employment, your employer gets the copyright, unless otherwise agreed. - -## Copyright and software - -Copyright predates software, but since software is a work of authorship, it is also protected (these days most copyright laws mention it explicitly). Copyright on software covers copying of the program (in whichever form) and making derivative works. - -This includes copying from disk to RAM so as to run the program. Dutch law has an explicit exception for this: if you have a legal copy on disk, then you're allowed to copy it to RAM so as to run it. - -Exactly what constitutes a derivative work of a computer program or library is a gray area, with little to no case law available. In other words, no one knows for sure what a judge would decide. On the other hand, there is a kind of common understanding of how it should probably work, and people operate on those assumptions with few problems so far. - -## Licensing copyright - -If you own the copyright for a work, including a computer program or library, then you can give others permission to make copies and derivative works by giving them a license (that's actually specifically mentioned in the law). A license is a specific or general offer of the right to make copies. - -For example, Dell™ has a license from Microsoft® to make copies of Microsoft Windows® and install them on the computers they sell. This is a specific offer written down in a contract between the companies. If we put up some code on the web under an open source license, then we are making a general offer – to anyone who wants it – to use our code under those terms. - -Note that the End User License Agreement that often pops up when you install software, is – despite the name – typically not a copyright license, since it doesn't give you permission to copy or create derivative works. Instead, it's legally a contract, which is why you have to click OK to accept it. - -There are many software licenses out there, including some common Free and Open Source Software licenses. More on these and how to use them is in the next chapter. - - -# Trademark acknowledgements - -Dell™ is a trademark of Dell, Inc. - -Microsoft® and Microsoft Windows® are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/database_rights.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/database_rights.md deleted file mode 100644 index c2268624..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/database_rights.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,22 +0,0 @@ -# Database Rights - -Database rights are a very new addition to the IP stable, and they exist only in the EU and a few other countries. Database rights protect the investment made to create a particular collection of information. According to these laws, whoever invests in the creation of a database gets the exclusive right to extract or reuse (make available to others) substantial parts of the database, or repeatedly extract or reuse insubstantial parts of the database. - -## Getting database rights - -So, if you pay someone to collect data and put it into a database, then you own the database rights on that database for the next 15 years (in the EU at least). If you then offer access to the database on a web site, people can query it and use the information they got out of it, but they're not allowed to download the entire database and share it with others. Also, making another web site that forwards queries to yours and returns the results is not allowed. - -## Other protections for databases - -The individual data items in a database are not protected by database rights, but they may be protected by other IP laws. - -For instance, if you pay someone to scan a large number of newspaper articles and put them into a database, then you get to own the database rights to that database (because you paid to make it). However, each individual article is also protected by copyright, which is owned by the newspaper. Simple facts cannot be copyrighted however, so e.g. individual measurements in a database of sensor data are not protected. - -A database can also be protected by copyright, if the selection and arrangement of the contents makes it a creative work. If you manually select newspaper articles and order them in a particular way so as to tell a story, the resulting database may be eligible for copyright protection, also in places where database rights do not exist. Furthermore, the data structure of a database (e.g. the DDL description of an SQL database structure) may be protected by copyright, just like software is. - -## Licensing database rights - -Permission to extract and reuse substantial parts of a database can be given to others by the owner of the database rights via a license. Starting with version 4.0, the well-known [Creative Commons](https://www.creativecommons.org) (CC) licenses include a grant of database rights, making them suitable for use with databases. There is also the Open Database License, which predates CC 4.0, and has a more academic origin. - -The default database license at the Netherlands eScience Center is the [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. Putting this license on your database will simultaneously license both the database rights and the copyright (if any) on the database itself and on its contents all under the same well-known and widely used terms. - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/examples.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/examples.md deleted file mode 100644 index 47ee8584..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/examples.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,46 +0,0 @@ -# Examples - -Examples using libraries can be found in the [Turing Way software license](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/licensing/01/softwarelicenses) chapter. - -## Data sets: Movie review emotion - -xtas contains a function that detects emotions in movie reviews. It works by fitting a model to a set of training data, and then applying the model to the xtas user's data. - -The training data set it uses is available on the Internet from the website of a European university, with a note saying that it can be used for academic research purposes only. xtas automatically downloads this data set the first time the user calls the function. - -Since it was created in Europe, the training data set is protected by database rights, which limit copying substantial parts of it. This means that the xtas user needs permission to have xtas download the data set, which they only have if they use the data for research purposes. - -Since the download happens automatically this may not be obvious, so it is documented in the function's documentation, and the function will refuse to work unless a named argument `for_academic_research=True` is used when calling it. - -xtas itself is not a database, and therefore cannot be a derivative work of the data set. The same goes for the model that is fit to the data. - -An alternative way to provide this functionality would be to fit the model once, and then distribute the model (but not the data set) with xtas. Whether doing so constitutes academic research is debatable however. - - -## Mixed: Download a car? - -For an internal research project, we needed annotated images of cars to train a neural network on. Such images can be found easily on car trading web sites, and so the question arose whether we could just grab a big collection of images from such a site. - -Dutch database law contains a provision (article 5.b.) that says that retrieval of a substantial part of the contents of a database for scientific research is allowed, as long as the source is acknowledged and the use is non-commercial. - -Unfortunately, this is not the only barrier. The photos on the site are also copyrighted works, owned by whoever made them, and making a copy requires their permission. - -Furthermore, the web site has a set of general terms and conditions, which forbids retrieving a substantial portion of the database. These apply to anyone using the web site. - -Downloading a car? Bad idea. - - -## Trademarks: Back to the future - -We have a research project on using deep learning for time series data called [mcfly](https://github.com/NLeSC/mcfly), named after the main character of the Back to the Future movies. Of course, this is a commercial franchise, so the question arose whether we can use that name for our project. - -A simple name is too short to be a copyrightable work, but names can be trademarked. A trademark search revealed an English band called McFly, who have trademarked that name for the class of entertainment services. Since our research project is not in that market, this is no problem. - -There is also a registered trademark for "McFly & Brown", an Amsterdam recruitment company, and that registration covers the class of "Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto" (even though this company does not seem to do any science or software development itself). - -Of course, "McFly & Brown" is not the same as "mcfly", and the question in this case is whether the two are confusingly similar. - -First, the two names are not actually the same, as we don't have the second part. Second, it seems unlikely that anyone would assume a highly technical scientific research project would be associated with a recruitment agency. Third, both names are derived from a well-known movie, which probably makes people more likely to conclude that the similarity is coincidental. - -Whether any of that reasoning holds up in court we're not sure of, but it sounded reasonable enough to name the project "mcfly". - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/intellectual_property_overview.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/intellectual_property_overview.md deleted file mode 100644 index 123900b0..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/intellectual_property_overview.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10 +0,0 @@ -# Intellectual Property - -As with anything else in society, some of what you can and cannot do in software development is determined by the law. Most of the constraints in this particular domain stem from intellectual property laws: laws that make abstract things like designs, stories, or computer programs resemble physical objects by allowing them to be owned. - -This chapter aims to give a brief summary of relevant intellectual property laws (enough to be able to read most software licenses), explain Free and open source software licensing, and explain how combining software from different sources works from a legal perspective. It also gives some rules we have worked out to deal with common situations. - -This is far from an exhaustive resource; only laws that are relevant to our software development practice (i.e. they come up regularly at the Netherlands eScience Center) are described. If you're interested in protecting a plant, boat hull, or microprocessor mask, then you should look elsewhere. Also, there are areas of law beyond intellectual property that often show up in software development practice, like contract law and consumer law; these are also not covered here. - -Of course, we'll begin with a disclaimer: Good legal advice is timely, specific, and given by an expert; this chapter is none of these. It was written by an engineer, not by a lawyer, and it's a heavily simplified overview of a very complex field. The intent is to give you an overview of the basics, so that you will know when to check whether something you want to do has potential legal ramifications. Don't make any important decisions based solely on the contents of this chapter. - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/software_licenses.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/software_licenses.md deleted file mode 100644 index 7f1bf546..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/software_licenses.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3 +0,0 @@ -# Software licenses - -Software licenses are explained in [The Turing Way](https://the-turing-way.netlify.app/licensing/01/softwarelicenses.html) chapter. diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/summary.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/summary.md deleted file mode 100644 index 8e34b7db..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/summary.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,48 +0,0 @@ -# Executive summary - -Intellectual property is a complex subject matter, and we're interested in developing code, not doing legal analysis. While we cannot always get away from doing some legal analysis in more complex cases, the majority of things we run into are relatively simple, and can be resolved by following some simple rules. This section gives such a set of rules, and does so rather conservatively, i.e. it lists only things that the eScience Center is definitely okay with. If your particular case is not listed here, then it may still be possible, but only after careful consideration. So in that case, read on and/or ask for help. - -**I want to publish my source code, not including any of its dependencies, is that ok?** - -If -- you publish your source code (and only your source code) under the Apache License version 2.0, -- *and* you do *not* include any externally-developed libraries you used, -- *and* all of the externally-developed libraries you used are under a free/open source license (see below) -then you are good to go. - -For the purpose of this rule, the following dependency licenses are okay - -- MIT -- BSD 2-clause -- BSD 3-clause -- Apache License version 2.0 -- GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later - -and any other licenses, including "for academic use only" and similar statements, are not okay. - - -**I want to use a library with license X, is that ok?** - -This is certainly no problem if the library has one of the following licenses: - -- MIT -- BSD 2-clause -- BSD 3-clause -- Apache License version 2.0 - -These are all permissive licenses that impose very little restrictions on how your program can be used. So go right ahead. - -We try to avoid copyleft licenses, such as the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and GNU General Public License (GPL), but if there is no alternative available, then using a library licensed under the (L)GPL is fine too. - -*Rationale: The Netherlands eScience Center is a publicly funded institution, and a such we want to maximise the number of ways in which people and organisations, including commercial ones, can use the software we develop. Copyleft licenses restrict this somewhat, so we try to avoid them. However, any Free Software can still be used by anyone for any purpose, redistributed, forked, and commercialised, which is enough freedom that we will not do a lot of extra work just to avoid copyleft.* - - -**I want to publish a data set, is that ok?** - -If -- You or your collaborators collected the data yourselves, as part of the project, -- *and* you all agree that you want to publish it under the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license -then you are good to go. - -If the data set contains (possibly processed) data you obtained from elsewhere, then the licensing situation of that data needs to be evaluated first. If you or our collaborators want to use a different license, then this should be discussed first. - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trade_secrets_patents.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trade_secrets_patents.md deleted file mode 100644 index 91a15d26..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trade_secrets_patents.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ -# Trade Secrets - -A trade secret is a secret with an economic benefit to the company that holds it. The recipe for Coca-Cola® is an oft-cited example, the source code for a proprietary software program may be another. - -Trade secrets are protected by Non-Disclosure Agreements: contracts that forbid you from sharing them with anyone. In The Netherlands, there is no specific law on trade secrets, so these contracts are all that protect them. - -In particular, that means that if someone spills your trade secret, then you can sue that person, but you can't do anything against the recipient of the secret. In the US, this is different: there it is a criminal offense to make use of a leaked trade secret, and you can go to jail for doing so. - - -# Patents - -From a societal point of view, trade secrets can be considered damaging. Progress can be made much more quickly if competitors can build on each other's inventions, but that is impossible if everyone keeps their inventions a secret. Patents ("octrooien" in Dutch, "patent" means that you're looking good) are intended to remedy this situation. - -A patent is the exclusive right to make, use and sell an invention, in exchange for publication of a description of it. Patents have a limited duration, which varies from place to place but is usually around 20 years. Patents cover devices that are new, inventive, and applicable to some problem. Discoveries, designs, business models, software and visualizations can not be patented (but see below). - -## Getting a patent - -Patents are obtained by writing up a description of the patent, with a list of claims that describe the claimed invention, and submitting that description to the patent office of the country where you want protection, together with a hefty fee. - -The patent office will then do a (often very cursory) check to see if the patent meets the requirements, and grant it. Once you have a patent, you are the only one allowed to use or sell the claimed invention; anyone else will need to buy a license from you, or prove that the patent is invalid when you sue them. - -## Software patents - -While software cannot be patented because it's not a device, a computer is a device. Some time ago, clever lawyers (especially in the US) therefore started filing patents for a machine that performs certain computational steps. While a piece of software or an algorithm therefore technically cannot be patented, anyone using that software or algorithm would still infringe the patent. - -The main problem with software patents is that there are a huge number of them out there, and they're written in obfuscated legalese. Many are likely invalid due to not being new, being too obvious, or being overly broad (the patent office's checks are minimal), but defending against someone with a lot of patents is very expensive unless it's completely obvious that you're not infringing anything. - -It is therefore quite easy to extort money from people by collecting a pile of patents, and threatening to sue them. Meanwhile, the benefit to society is long lost, because no one uses patents to figure out how to solve programming problems. - -Unfortunately, there's not much we can do to remedy this situation. In practice, just avoid using things that you know are patented, and hope for the best. - - -# Trademark acknowledgements - -Coca-Cola® is a trademark of The Coca-Cola Company, registered in the U.S. and other countries. - diff --git a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trademarks.md b/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trademarks.md deleted file mode 100644 index d95ff59a..00000000 --- a/intellectual_property_and_licensing/trademarks.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ -# Trademarks - -A trademark is the exclusive right to the use of a sign or design for the purpose of identifying the manufacturer of a product or supplier of a service. Trademarks are typically words or logos, but protection may extend to colors and even smells. - -Trademarks protect brands and reputations, and serve to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Because of this, similar or even identical trademarks may coexist, if the corresponding companies sell different kinds of goods or services, or operate in different areas. - -As an example, Apple Records and Apple Computer can co-exist peacefully despite the similar names, as it is obvious that an Apple laptop comes from Apple Computer, and an Apple CD from Apple Records. But when Apple Computer added a sound chip to the Apple IIGS, Apple Records sued them (and later sued them again over the Mac's system sound, and then about iTunes), because they were now in the same (music) market. - -## Getting a trademark - -Trademarks can be registered with the patent and trademark office, after which they're marked with an ® symbol. In some countries, notably the US, this is not required, and just using it in practice to identify your products is in principle enough. Non-registered trademarks are marked with a ™ symbol. - -Our Netherlands eScience Center logo is an example of a (non-registered) service mark (℠, although there is no legal protection for unregistered marks here). Service marks are essentially the same thing as trademarks, but they don't identify physical products (we don't make any) but services or intangible products, and as such are applied to equipment and uniforms and such. The idea is the same however. - -## Losing a trademark - -Trademarks lose their protection if they no longer identify a particular manufacturer, but become general terms for a category of products. For instance, a walkman is a portable audio cassette player. Sony® owns a trademark on that word, but in 2002 an Austrian judge ruled that since the word was in the dictionary as describing any portable audio cassette player, it had become a general term that is therefore not eligible for trademark protection. - -Companies do not want to lose their trademarks, so they're usually quite active about protecting them. Most companies have a trademark policy that is designed to protect their trademarks from becoming generic. Google®'s trademark policy for instance says that you should tell people to "do a Google search" for something rather than "Google it", as the latter uses the term generically to mean doing a web search. If you infringe on someone's trademark, you're likely to get a more-or-less friendly letter telling you to quit it or be sued. - -## Using a trademark - -Using trademarked words to refer to the corresponding product or company is generally fine, just make sure that you use them together with the generic term, as in the example above. If you use a trademark, you should acknowledge that it is a trademark using one of those ubiquitous notices like "Sony® is a registered trademark of Sony Corporation". Almost all companies have rules on what to do exactly, a web search for "<company> trademark guidelines" will show you the way. - -Software licenses (even Free Software licenses) typically do not give out trademark rights, so you may have to rename a fork if the origin considers your fork harmful to their brand. See e.g. Firefox® (a registered trademark of the Mozilla Foundation) and IceWeasel. - -# Trademark acknowledgements - -Apple is a trademark of Apple, Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. - -Firefox® and Mozilla® are registered trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation. - -Google™ is a trademark of Google, Inc. - -Sony® is a registered trademark of Sony Corporation. -