@liw @anotherdream @biblibre @KohaILS

that would be good, in the context of #Koha it's probably possible to go back through newsletters and such and build a chronology. So much of is/was public and should still be accessible. But that's only part of the basis of a history.

Oh and I forgot that @ranginui is here too, he'll definitely be able to say more if he's active.

@liw @anotherdream Hi Lars! So, it's been a while and I'm hazy on the specifics that you mention.

The background is that the company (who I'll call LibLime and later PTFS because those were their names) had shifted from reasonably good-faith-behaving within the community, to withdrawing from it and saying "ours now!" and it came to a head over the NZ trademark.

I know there was a lot of digging into historic claims that had been made by LibLime/PTFS about how they wouldn't do the sort of thing they're doing, and also things relevant to the trademark itself, such as how often is "Koha" (the name of the software and the trademark in dispute) associated with LibLime vs. other things, etc. But like I said, my memory of the specifics is hazy.

It was interesting, I attended the trademark hearing (it was walking distance from the office), and the lawyers on our side put out all the arguments they could find, as they should. The lawyers from their side didn't show up, if memory serves. I remember listening and thinking that this one sounds like a solid point, and this other one sounds a bit shaky. When the verdict was published, my intuition was pretty much exactly backwards about what was a good argument and what wasn't.

There are a few #Koha people around here who can no doubt chip in with more concrete information, for example @biblibre and @KohaILS

As an aside, if you go to koha.org it still redirects to liblime.org where they're selling their - probably Koha based - LMS called Bibliovation™, which sounds dangerously close to "bloviation".