[LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Val Kulkov]

On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
>>>>> part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>>>>> cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>>>>> positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
>>>>> to the development moving forward.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>>>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>>
>>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some
>> downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet)
>> were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of
>> OpenWRT project.
>>
>> I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
>> significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
>>
>> But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
>> brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
>
> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.

A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT"
trademark is owned by SPI:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:r3y94m.2.1

If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal
issue. In other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE",
there is no legal issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.

SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark
that appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a
purely hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do
not merge and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to
FreeWRT or alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the
"FreeWRT" trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to
OpenWRT.

My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce
this name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find
themselves equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like
in "LEAD the way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"?
While the core LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name
correctly, try explaining it to the world outside. For this reason,
"OpenWRT" is a better choice imho.

However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change
may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the
project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity
of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device)
or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the merge of
OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and
SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.

By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:8zgvq2.8.1

- Val