In case of Asimov, forever.

To flip your rhetorical trick against you: would it be ok if they did it 1 year after death? If no, then I'm "interested in more detail about when the odiousness crosses into being socially acceptable for you".

To expose your rhetorical trick: you wanted him to admit that it's ok after SOME time therefore it's ok after THIS time. You put the burden of proof for defending THIS time (i.e. 34 years) as acceptable on him. Which is hard.

Sneaky but only if don't get exposed.

Because equally correct framing is: if you accept that it's NOT ok after SOME time (1 year) then the burden of proof for defending it's ok THIS time (i.e. 34 years) is on you.

So go ahead, tell us what is the exact number of years that makes it ok. Defend YOUR number the way you wanted him to defend his.

I think 100 years after their death would be reasonable because at that point it's long enough that people won't assume there's an actual connection to the person or that it's endorsed/founded by them

Misleading people is not ok.

It's so not ok that we have laws against misleading people. Not against this particular misleading (I don't think, although if Asimov had a formal estate they could probably sue).

I can't open "Tom Cruse's Fine Wine" because I'm not Tom Cruse. It's wrong morally but also illegal. We have laws against things like that and Tom Cruse would surely sue my ass, successfully. The proof of that is that there is no "Tom Cruse's **" businesses out there.

It might stop being illegal if the person dies because to sue you have to have standing. Unless there is formal trust like e.g. Tolkien's works and business affairs which probably have standing to sue "Tolkien's Fine Wine".

A child would also take offense on being mislead. Not this particular misleading because it only misleads people who know who Asimov is and like his books. Your hypothetical child doesn't.

But tell a child you'll buy him an ice cream if he finishes his chores and let's see how he reacts if you mislead him by not buying an ice cream.

You must have learnt this at some point.

Young children can absolutely be jealous - I can easily imagine (perhaps it's even a distant memory of having witnessed) a toddler being upset that someone else actually has the same name, nevermind co-opting it.

And speaking of product names, I hope no one here is using Claude.

Perpetuity is insane. You shouldn't be able to name something "Ramses" without permission even though he's been dead for over 3000 years?

I could see maybe 20 years after death being reasonable.

This is an employee posting it to hackernews, which lets be honest is glad for any content that isn't a repost from 15+ years ago. Most people won't have heard of this vanity publication. And if this is news then il go elsewhere

Yeah.

I get the impression that if you're uninterested in either reading enough of the press release to get to the parts where they mention what they did, or navigating to the top-level index for the blog, where what they write about is made very plain, then you're not the type of person who would give any shits about what they write about.

I enjoyed his “science for the layman” books, a lot more than his sci-fi stuff.

He was really good at explaining very complex stuff, in a simple, approachable manner.

Judging by the fact that you DNRTFA, we can't help you.