Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   stefan (stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:23:01 JST stefan
   Mastodon is doing clown stuff again...
   
   https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2026/08/sharing-guidelines-about-mastodons-trade-mark-policy/
   
   I know you have to protect trademarks and stuff in the US especially. But I sure hope they add an option to easily change the logo of the site soon.
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:23:00 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de They don't even allow you to change the max character length of posts so don't count on it.

   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:28:50 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de The Mastodon repo is actually really bad and does not follow the advice given by the FSF at all.
     
     I can't find any file that says under which license the images, docs and other stuff are distributed as. They should rectify this by being explicit about it.
     
     Same thing with the actual source code itself. Every source file should have a license header, so it is unambiguous which license applies to that specific file.
     
     Putting the AGPL in the root is simply an implication that it applies to everything unless stated otherwise, but that's probably not what they meant so it is still unclear if you're going to get copyright issues or not if you decide to use anything. Fun, isn't it?

   • Embed this notice
     stefan (stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:28:55 JST stefan

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @SuperDicq I am tbh unsure if GPL (since logos are included in the source code) beats this policy.
     
     They should have made clear tbh
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:42:05 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de There's no need to ask lawyers, this is a well established practice.
     
     Every source file should have a license header.
     
     And other files such as images should have their license clarified somewhere in the repo. Either in the readme, or a separate txt file containing image attributions, or just putting something like a image.png.txt file next to the image with the license in it. Anything works as long as it is clear which image has which license.

     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     stefan (stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:42:07 JST stefan

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @SuperDicq sure is ey. But thats for mastos lawyers to figure.
     
     But tbh I dunno if they even asked like proper lawyers at like the FSF. They would gladly help I am sure
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:48:29 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de Honestly I'm not an expert on trademark law, but as far as I know I do not think this policy is enforceable in the first place. I don't think trademark law gives you the right to sue people for owning a specific domain name.

   • Embed this notice
     stefan (stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:48:31 JST stefan

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @SuperDicq I meant masto asking lawyers with their trademark policy btw...
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 22:50:49 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     @stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de I'm saying this because I think trademark law is usually only really enforceable if the other party uses your trademark in bad faith or is misleading people.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 23:44:24 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • SuperDicq
     @SuperDicq @stefan A company that holds a trademark can make legal threats over a domain name and try to convince the domain registrar to transfer the domain to them (has happened several times with websites critical of a company that uses the company name in the domain).
     
     But legally, it's only trademark infringement if the site intentionally misleads as to being approved by the trademark holder.
     
     "mastodon.net.au" is listed as "forbidden" in the article, but I don't see why that would be legally forbidden if the website clearly states; “This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by Mastodon GmbH. Mastodon is a Trademark of Mastodon GmbH. We like Proboscideas”.
     
     But you can just go with the cooler domain; "not-mastodon.net" and run GNU Social and not include such disclaimer and have them cope and seethe - as not-«trademark» makes it clear that it's not the trademark.
     
     Have they even trademarked "masto" or "mstdn"? They've made overreaching claims haven't they?
   • Embed this notice
     SuperDicq (superdicq@minidisc.tokyo)'s status on Friday, 14-Aug-2026 23:53:12 JST SuperDicq

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @stefan@akko.lightnovel-dungeon.de They are definitely making overreaching claims here implying that even names that contain "Masto" or "Mstdn" can be considered misleading trademark abuse.
     
     GNU is still called Gnu's Not Unix, despite Unix being a registered trademark too.