undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnknight14y ago0 comments

> 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?

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

soc8814y ago· 4 in thread

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

tankenmate14y ago

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?

soc8814y ago

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

nknightOP14y ago

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?

soc8814y ago

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

lmm14y ago

>"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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

soc8814y ago· 4 in thread

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

tankenmate14y ago

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?

soc8814y ago

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

nknightOP14y ago

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?

soc8814y ago

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

lmm14y ago

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"?

>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?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse