Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
> But I think it's worth drawing the community's attention to this issue. 
> Whether it's important that the Trust have the right to legally stop 
> someone from calling something "Koha" that isn't Koha (the trademark 
> owner is ultimately going to be the one that has the legal power to 
> decide what is "really" Koha or not. Which is what, i'm confident, has 
> LibLime worried, since some parts of the  Koha community have already 
> accused LibLime of calling something "Koha" that is not.)

I don't think many care about the Trust having that power, but LibLime
having that power is a very scary thought.  If they get this
trademark, could they try to assert that Koha is only LLEKoha or
LLAKoha or whatever their fork is now called and try to obstruct the
user community release process?

Except, of course, that LibLime is only the inheritor of the first
developer, while the Trust is the first user, so the Trust should win
out of those two: the buyer of that bespoke software came first.

It's a pretty sorry state of affairs that the music+movies control
freakery has led to processes that allow this sort of attempted
software control freakery.  Surely the buyer should have more say over
what they call their purchase than the seller?

MJ Ray (slef), member of, a for-more-than-profit co-op. supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician.
In My Opinion Only: see
Available for hire for Koha work