I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's kind of a fork, but it's really just another release of Owncast by somebody else. They're releasing something called Owncast with functionality and decisions that have nothing to do with the real Owncast. It specifically says stuff like "Owncast does X", and Owncast does not do X, and will never do X. Only their changes do X.
I fear this may confuse people. If something goes wrong with their version of the software, people are going to ask me for support, and might make the real Owncast look bad. But I don't know if this is wrong, or if this is completely acceptable. It's open source, and the name "Owncast" isn't owned by anybody, as Owncast is an open source project, not a company. So I guess they have the right to do whatever they want and call it Owncast.
But it feels wrong, and it seems like really bad things could come of this.
@gabek If they want to fork #Owncast, they legally can, but they should not call it Owncast anymore. I know #Mastodon & #WordPress are open source as well, but they vigorously protect their trademarks to prevent this type of confusion.
If possible, I would encourage them to rename their fork something else. If they refuse, let us know which company it is so we can avoid doing business with them.
@gabek @darnell it's not a company that need to own it, but a legal entity and there are many such structures (though those vary by jurisdiction). There are things like co-operatives or nonprofit organizations (where again the definition varies by jurisdiction).
For example, the Debian trademark is held by the non-profit SPI 501(c)(3) in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest
Though there are lighter alternatives if no donations are expected to be handled.
@gabek @darnell it is reasonable for an individual to hold the trademark until such a legal entity can be established, then the trademark transferred.
If there's an active threat of a company registering the trademark themselves, consider doing that preemptively