Re: Suggestion... renaming base, gui to Foundation and AppKit

[Yavor Doganov]

David Chisnall wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2010, at 10:03, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> >> but other projects which have attempted to implement Cocoa have used
> >> the names "Foundation" and "AppKit" without any problems.
> > 
> > That is not a reason to feel safe
> 
> Yes it is.  The Doctrine of Latches applies.

True, but if the defendant opts to use laches as defensive technique,
the burden of proof lies on him to show that the plaintiff was
actually aware of those cases.  Also, AFAIK (but I'm not sure at all,
and US Law may be specific/awkward in such situations), laches may be
in effect only if the relationship between the two parties is
concerned -- IOW, if it is proven that Apple neglected to act upon a
prior "infringement" by the *GNUstep project*.  Plus, as it would be
trivial for them to prove prejudice in GNUstep's actions (the rename
would be made precisely to match the name of the proprietary
implementation), matters can get tricky.

In general, it is better to steer clear off any possible legal
implications, or at least consult the FSF which would be the legal
entity in a hypothetical case.  One of the nice effects of copyright
assignment is that you don't have to worry and decide about these
matters :-).

> It's also worth noting that the fact that Apple has not taken action
> over Objective-J may mean that the Objective-C trademark is no
> longer valid,

Yes, this weakens their stance in possible future lawsuits.

> although the only way to test that would be persuading them to sue
> someone over calling something Objective-C.

True, for legislations where precedent law is practiced.
 
> >> As it is with class names "NSObject" etc...
> > 
> > These are part of the API, so not a concern.
> 
> Both Foundation and Application Kit are in the OpenStep
> Specification, so they are as much a part of the API.

If that's so then it is almost certain that there is no problem.

However, is it really worth it?