Open-source trademark protection has become a flashpoint in the tech community, as Notepad++ creator Don Ho discovered when an unauthorized macOS port began masquerading as an official release. The incident reveals a fundamental tension: GPL licensing explicitly permits forking and porting software, but it says nothing about protecting the original project’s name and branding from misuse.
Key Takeaways
- Notepad++ creator Don Ho rejected an unofficial macOS port using his project’s name and logo without authorization.
- The fake port operated under notepad-plus-plus-mac.org and included Ho’s biography to appear legitimate.
- GPL permits code forking but does not protect trademarks, creating a legal gray zone for open-source projects.
- Ho escalated the dispute to Cloudflare after refusing the developer’s request for “a couple of weeks” to rebrand.
- The case highlights why open-source creators increasingly need separate trademark registration alongside permissive licenses.
What Happened: Branding vs. Code Freedom
Don Ho was unequivocal about the core issue: “Notepad++ has never released a macOS version”. The unofficial port, developed by Andrey Letov and hosted at notepad-plus-plus-mac.org, did not merely copy the code—it copied the name, the chameleon logo, and even Ho’s biography, creating the false impression that this was an official release. Ho’s complaint was surgical: he had no objection to the port’s existence as a GPL-licensed fork, only to the trademark infringement and consumer deception.
When Letov requested two weeks to transition to new branding, Ho refused. “I cannot authorize a ‘week or two’ of continued trademark infringement,” Ho stated, and escalated the matter to Cloudflare, the site’s CDN provider. This was not a collaborative rebranding negotiation—Ho made clear he was not working with Letov on any transition and would “take the necessary legal steps to protect the trademark”.
The Open-Source Licensing Paradox
Notepad++ is released under the GPL license, which explicitly permits anyone to fork, modify, and redistribute the code. This permissiveness is a feature, not a bug—GPL exists to ensure software freedom. But GPL says nothing about trademarks. A developer can legally create a macOS port of Notepad++ under GPL; they cannot legally distribute it under the Notepad++ name without authorization.
This gap between code licensing and trademark law creates a recurring problem for open-source projects. A project’s license governs what you can do with the software itself; trademark law governs what you can call it. The fake Notepad++ macOS port exploited this gap by using GPL’s permissiveness as cover for trademark misuse. Ho’s escalation to Cloudflare was the logical response—he reported the trademark infringement to the CDN provider, which only acknowledges abuse reports from trademark holders or their authorized representatives.
Why This Matters Beyond Notepad++
The incident exposes why open-source creators cannot rely on licensing alone to protect their work’s identity. GPL solved the code freedom problem; it did not solve the brand identity problem. A developer can take Notepad++ source code, port it to macOS, and legally distribute it—but only if they call it something else and do not use Ho’s name or logo.
Letov’s port might be technically sound. The GPL allows it. But the unauthorized use of the Notepad++ name and chameleon logo crossed a line that code licensing does not address. Ho’s trademark complaint is not anti-open-source; it is a defense of the distinction between the right to fork code and the right to claim authorship. Other major open-source projects—Linux, Python, Firefox—protect their trademarks separately from their licenses for exactly this reason.
The Broader Lesson on Open-Source Governance
This dispute reveals why open-source projects increasingly need to register trademarks and establish clear branding guidelines. GPL gives away code freedom; trademark law protects brand identity. The two are not in conflict—they operate in different domains. Ho’s position is consistent with open-source principles: fork the code freely, but do not confuse the community by claiming the original creator’s name and brand.
For developers considering porting or forking major open-source projects, the lesson is clear. Check the project’s trademark status. If the original creator has registered the name, you cannot use it without permission, even if the GPL license permits the code fork. Notepad++ is a high-profile example, but the same principle applies to any open-source project with an established brand.
Is the macOS port itself illegal?
No. Under GPL, creating a macOS port of Notepad++ is entirely legal. The infringement is the unauthorized use of the Notepad++ name, logo, and Ho’s biography on the fake site. A legally compliant port would carry a different name, clearly indicate it is an unofficial fork, and not use Ho’s identity to appear legitimate.
Can open-source projects prevent forks?
GPL explicitly permits forks and derivatives. Open-source creators cannot prevent others from taking the code and creating modified versions. They can only protect their trademark and require that forks use different names and branding. This is why trademark registration is essential for open-source projects that want to maintain brand identity.
What happens next with Notepad++?
Ho has indicated he will pursue legal action to protect the trademark. Cloudflare’s response to the abuse report will determine whether the fake site is taken down. If Letov rebrands the macOS port with a new name and removes Ho’s biography, the legal dispute likely ends—the GPL port would then be legitimate. If he continues using the Notepad++ name and branding, Ho has grounds for a trademark infringement lawsuit.
The Notepad++ trademark dispute is not a fight over code freedom—it is a fight over brand identity in a space where GPL permits forking but trademark law permits brand protection. Open-source does not mean nameless. Creators have the right to defend their project’s identity even as they share the code freely. This case will likely influence how other open-source projects approach trademark protection going forward.
Edited by the All Things Geek team.
Source: Tom's Hardware
