jacobsalmela
commented
6 years ago Open jacobsalmela opened 6 years ago
jacobsalmela
commented
6 years ago 
fabaff
commented
6 years ago Please be more specific about "several". I guess that you are referring to 'You may not use “Pi-hole” without “for” preceding it'. I can change the preposition in the docstrings and where else it's needed.
There is no indication that it's official or endorsed by your legal entity.
Also, this is Python module and it follows the standard way to install a Python module provided by PyPI.
Just to be clear, this is not an "app for pi-hole". It's a Python module to get the details from the Rest API. There is no need to have a local Pi-hole installation or is this module integrating into Pi-hole.
jacobsalmela
commented
6 years ago Please be more specific about "several". I guess that you are referring to 'You may not use “Pi-hole” without “for” preceding it'. I can change the preposition in the docstrings and where else it's needed
Indeed: pip install pihole may mislead people into thinking it's officially from us or that they are installing Pi-hole, which they are not.
There is no indication that it's official or endorsed by your legal entity.
Also correct because the only things we endorse are things we have developed or people we've partnered with.
Just to be clear, this is not an "app for pi-hole". It's a Python module to get the details from the Rest API. There is no need to have a local Pi-hole installation or is this module integrating into Pi-hole.
"Apps" is a general term for software development.
I see you already updated the it to say it's not official, so thank you. But there is still the matter of pihole v0.1.2 and pip install pihole, which should be changed to something like python-api-tester-for-pihole , which is obviously a bit verbose, so something like pyphapi-for-pihole would work
Thank you.
fabaff
commented
6 years ago First you were talking about pi-hole, now you complaining about pihole, then about hole? There is no mentioning that you have a trademark for pihole nor are you referring directly to pihole in your guidelines. I know that your next argument will be "use the Pi-hole marks or a name or logo which is similar to them in a way that will take advantage of our brand or our reputation;".
As an engineer I say that using the real name for something is always better than paraphrase or botch it. That can become much worse than using the real name. The lawyers see it of course differently. Do I "take advantage of our brand or our reputation" or do I harm? No, I don't. I'm using your brand name to name and give the user the appropriate feedback, e.g., in the docstrings and class name for developers and the exceptions for the users.
Indeed: pip install pihole may mislead people into thinking it's officially from us or that they are installing Pi-hole, which they are not.
Why should people think that? The package description which is available on PyPI, with pip and in the source repo is not saying that it is installing Pi-hole or that it's an official package. The short description says what the module is for and the long description as well including that it's not official. To be sure, it updated the description again.
If you are not happy, please provide me your own description. Thanks
I see you already updated the it to say it's not official, so thank you. But there is still the matter of pihole v0.1.2 and pip install pihole, which should be changed to something like python-api-tester-for-pihole , which is obviously a bit verbose, so something like pyphapi-for-pihole would work
Those package names may work in certain ecosystem but not in the big ones. Sorry, but now it looks like that you are making things up. There is not a single package shipped by a distribution (Debian, Fedora or CentOS) with a name *-for-pihole. There is also none on PyPI, CPAN, Ruby Gems and npm.
Could it be that "You may not use “Pi-hole” without “for” preceding it" is too muddy? IMHO, the reason seems that the previous line says "in the title" and not "in general" or for the "tool name" but that a technicality, right?
Using -for- in a package name is highly unusual, too. E.g. in the Fedora Package repository:
$ dnf list \*-for-\* | wc -l
8
$ dnf list available | wc -l
57000PEP8 contains a section about Package and Module Names. So, you hitting on the preposition for the package name is not going to help especially as we should keep the eye on the price: The users. According to Google a lot of them are using pihole instead of Pi-hole when referring to the project anyway.
Using import pihole after the installation other than import module_to_get_details_from_a_thing is faster and closer in accordance to the PEP8. And, as mentioned before, for a lot of users more natural.
Sure, we can now start talking that the real reason for your complain is that you would like to use pihole or pi_hole on PyPI by yourself. But as there are non existing packages is this hypothetical. Oh, pyhole is already gone...
You may not use the Pi-hole marks without written approval from us
As it's likely that I don't get a written approval to use Pi-hole in any way as it's an app (just to use the same terminology as you do) and not a blog post/video/article, I would like to have clear statements about the following:
for in front of your wordmark is mandatory everywhere including module, package or other names. Also, in free text.This will be of interest for other developers as well as it affects the whole Open Source community that is contributing to Pi-hole. Thus, it should be added to the website that everybody is treated the same and you should provide an alternative if you are disallowing it.
It's kind of interesting that the list of projects at Pi-hole Projects which I looked at to be compliant in the first place, doesn't need to follow any guidelines...I'm simply hoping that this here is not used for a PR stunt or a precedent.
I would be more than happy to move this module to the Pi-hole orga, give you control over it and change the license to one that is in alignment with your needs. I actually would prefer that because more hands create better code and a better user experience.
Please review your guidelines (as they may be pretty new) and your attitude when it comes to third party contributions. Everybody will agree that you need to protect your brand but everybody will agree with me that it should be done in a reasonable way. Changing the module name to something like import module_to_get_details_from_a_thing will be a loss for everybody.
The code that is currently used was written in 2016 and you never complained about it back then. This module is a re-write for better performance. Breaking out of the code into a module which can be imported with a meaningful name will allow others to re-use it. At the end of day we need the improved code and making a module of it is the right way to do it in regard of the Open Source philosophy.
jacobsalmela
commented
6 years ago It's merely something we need to do to protect our trademarks; no stunts.
I will agree that my naming examples were poor, so I'm hoping you'll also agree that pip install pihole is misleading and confusing.
We'll be removing the non-compliant projects from our page with the next release.
I think it's a cool project, but I don't know that we'd be able to effectively maintain it if it was in our org repo. What did you have in mind as far as maintaining the project and developing it? Maybe there is some alternative that would work for both of us?
fabaff
commented
6 years ago Please make clear statement about the usage of your wordmark as I asked you to.
I will agree that my naming examples were poor
Naming examples were poor because they don't make any sense by putting a for in. This is the reason you should make a statement about the naming of packages, modules, etc. as I asked before.
that
pip install piholeis misleading and confusing.
I don't want to explain it any further as you don't see the point here or read my comments. If you take something out of context it would/could always be misinterpreted or confusing, like e, pi, pip, bash alpha or anyotherword. Assuming that a user will executing a command without knowing what going to happen, then so be it. I think that you should know that better than anybody else.
I see it from an Open Source and community point of view. You from the commercial/monetary side of the trademark owner.
We'll be removing the non-compliant projects from our page with the next release.
I guess that you will open an issue in your repo that people can track your effort.
BTW, I'm especially interested and curious how this will work with the Docker containers or the PHP and the go client. With names like something/docker-for-pihole or go-for-pihole it will be clear for all of us that the third party contribution is going to do. It will be in no way misleading, confusing or suggesting something else if there is no context.
but I don't know that we'd be able to effectively maintain it if it was in our org repo.
I didn't say that you need to maintain it. If the module would be under the umbrella of the orga then there would be no longer an issue.
What did you have in mind as far as maintaining the project and developing it?
Nothing else. I already explained the purpose the module.
Maybe there is some alternative that would work for both of us?
Well, you will likely not give the permission to name the module as it should be named and you don't want it to be moved to your orga that it can be named as it should. So, there are no real viable options left.
fabaff
commented
6 years ago Can you please provide further details about the usage as I asked 4 days ago? Thanks.
jacobsalmela
commented
6 years ago Please be patient. Thank you.
jacobsalmela
commented
6 years ago The discussion has moved over here: https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/trademark-and-contributions/10274
There are several infringements on our trademarks with this repo and installation methods. Please review our guidelines and adjust as necessary. Please contact me directly with any questions.
https://pi-hole.net/trademark-rules-and-brand-guidelines/