[amyjess]

I hope this leads more developers to begin using restrictive trademark terms for their work, like Mozilla does with their software (e.g. you cannot fork Firefox and still call it "Firefox") or what Tuomo Valkonen did with ion3.

And for that matter, this sounds like a pretty strong disincentive for developers to make their code open-source at all. I'd rather just release proprietary software under a license that allows me to revoke individual entities' ability to distribute my work on a whim to prevent something like this from happening. And I mentioned Tuomo above for a reason--his experiences with ion3 and dealing with the open-source community drove him to a similar decision, and he quit writing open-source software and developing for Linux as a result. By the time he quit, he had become an active opponent of free software.

[_pmf_]

IIRC, Tuomo was also dissatisfied with the state of Linux on the desktop in general.

[amyjess]

A huge chunk of that was that he was fed up with stable distributions shipping older versions of his software, so he'd get inundated by bug reports from users who were reporting things he'd already fixed. He argued that distros like Debian Stable and RHEL were actually more prone to bugs because of this. He wanted distros to use either rolling release or the Microsoft/Apple model, where the OS vendor only ships the base OS and all other software is acquired from third parties.

Because of this, he ended up putting in a termination clause in his license:

> 3. Redistributions of this software accessible plainly with a name

> of this software ("ion", "ion3", etc.), must provide the latest

> release with a reasonable delay from its release (normally 28 days).

> Older releases may be distributed, if the full version, or some

> other explicit indicator, such as the word "ancient", is part of

> the name that the package is accessed with, or if this identifier

> is completely unrelated to a name of this software.