Your comment makes the copyright/trademark split very clear, thanks! But doesn't the existence and enforcement of the trademark put conditions on the code fork that are incompatible with the GPL? If I'm GPLing my code, the license says you can copy it and redistribute it, including all the strings and graphical assets covered under the license. It doesn't generally carve out stuff that's trademarked as not covered by the license. I can go to the Linux tree right now, fork a copy ("Linux" strings and all), and distribute it on my web site, and be legally in the clear. Same is true for any other GPL project out there.

▲

stetrain 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case, the issues under dispute are the cases where the trademark was used outside of the GPL-covered code.

Specifically the port author using the Notepad++ name and logo on their website, in addition to the photo and bio of the original Notepad++ author, in a way that could mislead others to think that this was part of the original Notepad++ project.

A post with screenshots is here: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/npp-trademark-infringemen...

Hosting a copy of the GPL'd Linux code, represented as such, and making a website claiming to represent Linux or the Linux Foundation with Linus's face and name on it are different things.

▲

nottorp 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds".

So you can fork all you want, but he can legally prevent you from calling it "Linux".

▲

ryandrake 8 hours ago | parent [-]

So, Linus himself can force someone to take down their mirrored kernel tarball? Wild. I suppose I learned something today.

	▲	rpdillon 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Their modified kernel tarball, yes. The idea is if you create a forked version that instead is malware, that intercepts everything that happens on the computer and sends it off to an adversary, that trademark protections allow the original author of the non-malicious software to say you can't call it by the name that I'm using for my product because you've changed it and it's malicious now. Trademark law is the most reasonable leg of the intellectual property triad, in my opinion.
	▲	7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	nottorp 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No, don't think so. But he can force you to call it "Carrot" in all marketing materials. Although you have to state it's a modification of "Linux" because of the GPL :)