[nknight]

The response to these incidents is depressingly predictable. "Yes he has the right to shut it down, but..." -- no, there is no "but".

Consider this: An employee quits his job. Do you say "Yes, he has the right to quit, but..."? No. There is no "but". He has the right to quit, period.

Involuntary servitude isn't allowed even when someone is getting paid for it, what the hell makes you think it's acceptable when they aren't, and are even investing their own resources?

He's not being a jerk, he's not being harsh. His right in this matter is absolute, and he's already given the community more of an opportunity than was necessary -- legally, ethically, or socially -- to step up. He has no obligation of any kind to keep putting his time and money into it. If you want slavery, build yourself a time machine, don't demand that he do it for you.

[soc88]

This comparison is just deeply flawed.

Point is, he can do whatever he wants, but his actions are solely designed to make the live of everyone else a bit harder, just for the sake of it.

[ww520]

I didn't see he forgot to return the keys (owned by the company). He asked for help to transition it off. No one came, so he just shut it down.

Yes. I can see how everyone's life is a bit harder since he has stopped providing free product and service for them. Well, they had a free ride to begin with.

[soc88]

You are still missing it completely.

[bmelton]

I believe it is you missing the point. They're his keys. If I quit the company I'm working for, they can't just take all all my keys because at some point they gave me some.

This is no different than my old neighbor, Mr. Taylor. He used to let us use the pool in his backyard until one of the kids pooped in it. He stopped letting those kids come to the pool.

It's his pool, and it's his choice who can and can't use it. In this case, David Pollack has just decided nobody can use the pool, and he's put a fence around it.

You're just pissed you can't use the pool for free anymore.

[soc88]

I never used his pool.

I just think that his behavior is intended to maximize the potential damage to everyone, he is well aware of that and does it on purpose, because someone hurt his feelings.

In my opinion there are other, more constructive options available.

[ww520]

Can you prove that? I'm not familiar with the Scala drama.

Even if that innuendo is true, why don't you blame the one who hurts his feeling? Instead of blaming him. Open source developers are human, too. They have taken on far too much abuses from ungrateful users.

I don't see the need for David to be a doormat to every abusive user out there. I would snap too and say fuck it, you guys are on your own.

[tbsdy]

Please, tell us the point then.

[zak_mc_kracken]

You are over-dramatizing, and you are doing the exact same thing that the OP said: thinking you can add a "but" to what is a 100% personal decision.

Reread the comment above and take the time to understand it.

[nknight]

The "keys" in this case are his own property, and any banners he might want to put up are being put up on his own property, so your supposed point makes no sense.

[soc88]

So you would expect to be totally within your rights if you would register windows-tools.com/net, ipod-library.com/net and use these sites to damage the reputation of the mentioned product?

[nknight]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that there's some sort of legally-enforceable trademark at issue, but you've provided no evidence of it. To even begin to claim a trademark, you must assert it, and I see no evidence of anyone asserting such a trademark. To actually enforce it in court, registration is required in the US and I'm sure at least some other countries.

You also have interpreted his statements as saying he will seek to harm the reputation of Scala, but his statements only imply that if you assume the worst about people. In other words, you're projecting.

[soc88]

Then maybe you should actually read the text.

Apart from that, registering multiple common scala-* domains and then making them point to his blog instead of something actually related to the topic is pretty much the definition of domain grabbing.

Sure, he can do it and figure out if he gets away with it. But in my opinion it is just ethically and morally wrong to register domains which with popular names which are expected to be used by Scala-related projects and keep them to punish the whole community for something a single person did.

[bigiain]

You realise you're sounding a lot like you've never had to deal with the problems of the effectively single dns namespace before?

Trademarks don't automatically apply to domain names - since ordinary trademarks apply to a narrow protection of people offering "that same type of goods or services". ("Generic" trademarks exists, but need t meet much wider standards of public recognition than Scala-as-a-programming-language has.)

Apart from trademark disputes, which "The Scala Community" have no chance of winning here, domain names have _always_ been first come first served. If _you_ thought scala-tools.org was a worthwhile asset, you should have registered it before he did. Same with any scala-* domain.

Feel free to get huffy about whether or not you think he should have done things differently, but trying to frame this as some sort of abuse of domain name ownership is, frankly, naive...

[lmm]

He has the right to quit, but the domain is a .org, and its name is not his but that of the language; it should belong to the community. If he wants to stop running it that's fine, but he should let it lapse or sell it to someone who will maintain it for the community, not turn it into something else.

[nknight]

> the domain is a .org

That has no particular significance. The Big Three TLDs haven't had any special requirements or policies in many years.

> its name is not his but that of the language

The language's name is "Scala", not "scala-tools.org", but let's assume you just think any domain with "scala" in its name is effectively the name "Scala". I have some news for you:

"Scala" is also the name of a typeface, the student chapter of the American Library Association, part of human anatomy, a unit of area, a couple of music albums, a software company with no connection to the programming language, a couple of entertainment venues, two locations, a surname for I-don't-know how many people, and a snail.

> it should belong to the community

A "community" cannot actually own a thing. Who exactly do you think should have the domain? Who represents "the community"? And why exactly does this amorphous "community" have some special claim to one of an infinite number of domains that might be used for similar or entirely different purposes?

[lmm]

>"Scala" is also the name of a typeface, the student chapter of the American Library Association, part of human anatomy, a unit of area, a couple of music albums, a software company with no connection to the programming language, a couple of entertainment venues, two locations, a surname for I-don't-know how many people, and a snail.

disingenous. He's not talking about repurposing the domain for any of those things.

>A "community" cannot actually own a thing. Who exactly do you think should have the domain? Who represents "the community"?

Once the community gets sufficiently large, a formal foundation like apache or the python software foundation. (Obviously for practicality it's fine for the domains of a smaller community to be owned by individuals, but they should act as custodians)

>And why exactly does this amorphous "community" have some special claim to one of an infinite number of domains that might be used for similar or entirely different purposes?

If you call your domain scala-tools and your site becomes known as a place to get scala tools you have a moral obligation to keep it about scala tools, or give it up and let someone else use the name. Doing otherwise would be cybersquatting - scala-lang may not be a single person's name, but it still means something.

[soc88]

Maybe someone should try to explain to you the concept of a "trademark".

[tankenmate]

I think that is one variant of his point and you have completely missed it. Who in the "community" should own the "trademark"? Did someone register it? Do "they" represent the community?

[soc88]

The EPFL owns it, especially the logo he is also using. And no, registering is not always a requirement.

[nknight]

I can find no evidence of anyone registering "Scala" as a trademark for a programming language. www.scala-lang.org never indicates there is a trademark or uses any usual trademark symbol.

I expect I'll be receiving an apology for your condescending assault on my intelligence?

[soc88]

Sorry. I think we should try having a constructive debate again, that was lost a bit it seems.