First, we can’t change what doesn’t exist.
Second, I think in the long run it will be more confusing to have the same name for two different things (a software that may be installed also by others, and a web site that runs on that software).
If we use the same name for both, and if the software indeed ends up being used by others as well, then I’m sure that sooner or later many question about Codidact will at first be replied to with “do you mean the site, or the software?”
Let’s burn that bridge when we come to it. Bike-shedding, yak-shaving, and so on. I don’t think we should optimise for problems we don’t have; I’m sure when the time comes, any discussions will provide enough context to make it clear what topic the users would be referring to.
…why are we running a version of Codidact? Is it for further questions about the software, or would it be similar to meta.se?
We will run a version of Codidact because our ultimate goal is to have a community-controlled Q&A site. We write the code so that we can have the site.
We’re going to host a network of communities, so we’ll have (for example) writing.codidact.com and worldbuilding.codidact.com and photography.codidact.com and whomever else wants to join. (I made up two of those examples; I have no special knowledge.) We’ll also have something akin to SE’s main meta, where we can have discussions about our instance, though I think we should learn from SE and have a better answer than that for bug reports. That’s all TBD, but to get back to your question – we’re providing a home for any community that wants to use the Codidact software and abides by our lightweight, reasonable policies (e.g. we don’t want hate sites).
100% agreed. One thing that we may want to consider is a license restriction regarding use of the name Codidact - in some context, I don’t think we can (or should) restrict someone saying “this is running on Codidact software”, but rather to prevent (technically/legally - practically is another story) someone from using our software (which is open source and anyone can use it) for a “hate site” and then claim that somehow they are “supported by” or “affiliated with” Codidact-the-organization. The same would apply to the logo and any other (TBD) primary identifying marks. I have jokingly referred to The Friendly Blue Monster 
but arguably if/when we have a true non-profit legal structure in place, that could/should be protected intellectual property.
I like the idea, but without a legal department it might be hard to actually shutdown hate.nazis.org running the Codidact SW. Do you know if the AGPL allows such restrictions?
Edit: Seems to be mostly impossible: https://www.torkinmanes.com/our-resources/publications-presentations/publication/ethical-open-source-is-the-world-ready
I don’t mean preventing other instances; people can take our software and do whatever they want with it. I mean that on the instance that we host on our domain, we get to say no to Nazis, child porn, 4chan, and the like.
No, it doesn’t allow such restrictions - but as Monica says, all we need to do is make sure we don’t end up hosting those communities on our instance, and to stamp on them if they try to use our logos/other IP or claim affiliation.
That is what I was getting at. I don’t know what/how - maybe someone else here knows what to do - but we should put the Friendly Blue Monster and any similar graphics/text (tag line? vision? I’m not sure what can/can’t be reasonably protected) under a different license such that nobody can (legally) walk off with it. That will likely at the moment affect the Landing Page more than anything else. For the software running Codidact, the FBM and similar stuff can be referenced to “elsewhere” outside the AGPL/GPL/whatever-we-do licensed code, so that each instance can plop in a reference to their logo.
Yes, we need to assert ownership over our logo, name, and certain design elements. SE does this too (content is licensed, logos etc aren’t), so maybe look there for guidance. I don’t know what we need to do here, but a high priority would be restricting the license on the landing-page repo as a whole and adding something about this to the main readme. A real solution requires somebody who knows this subject better.
@ArtOfCode can you do something initial here while we figure out the real answer?
The simple solution for now may be to restrict license (as you suggested) on the entire Landing Page repo. Except for Co-Design (which is separate anyway and included by reference), nothing from the Landing Page would be needed by any other instance of Codidact.
Second step is to make sure the things we would consider IP - e.g., the FBM logo - are only referenced by the main repo (“put your image here”, and we put in FBM) and not included directly (or if they are included, with separate clearly marked licensing).
It’s always worth remembering that, for both code and design elements like logos, things are copyrighted as soon as they’re created and must be explicitly licensed for anyone to use them. I’ll have a look into making sure our logo is in the right places.
Speaking of which… someone really needs to get on that non-profit thing so it can own the copyrights.
Yes, but code is also automatically copyrighted. IANAL, but arguably if images are thrown in the same repo as code with no licensing distinctions made, then the images and code have the same copyrights with the same (relatively open, deliberately for the code) license.
I think the copyright license is the wrong place here. Note that you cannot copyright a name like Codidact at all.
The tool to use here is trademark law IMHO.
You may be right. Names can be trademarked but not copyrighted. Larger blocks of text can, and in fact often are automatically copyrighted. I am not sure where logos, images, etc. fall into all of this. But I think that a starting point is with the public licensing. No, we can’t (and actually, should not) restrict someone who is using our software from saying “powered by Codidact software” - that is simply a statement of fact. But we can, and I believe should, restrict:
One thing that I think is analogous (except I haven’t actually looked at it in years, so I could be totally wrong) is Centos vs. RedHat. My understanding is that the code is virtually identical - every feature added to RedHat ends up in Centos. But the RedHat name and logo can only be used if you pay for (or otherwise get, but not “free open source”) a RedHat license.
This is BTW another argument for using a different name for the site than for the software. With two different names, it will always be clear whether a site is just powered by the software, or belongs to our network. With the same name, even a well-intentioned, but badly written reference might unintentionally give the impression of affiliation with the network.
Not that that stops certain large organizations. To be a bit topical, the NFL is infamous for their abuse of trademark laws to stop anyone from running ads using the term “Super Bowl” who hasn’t paid them for the privilege. (Legally, they don’t have a leg to stand on, but to assert one’s legal rights, one needs to be able to afford to take on the NFL in court!)
Simply speaking facts or opinions involving a trademarked name is protected by what’s called Nominal Fair Use. Actually using the name or mark in commerce, or stating/implying a business relationship where none exists, is where you’re crossing the line. So what you’re asking for in your two bullet points, as I understand it, would be adequately covered by registering trademarks on the name and logo.
(IANAL. I’ve spent a fair amount of time researching this, but actual legal advice should come from a specialist in trademark law.)
In all geographies you want it to be protected, renewing it every couple years…
I didn’t say it’d be easy, or cheap. Just that it would work.