> As long as the forked project makes the relationship (or lack of relationship) and support expectations clear, I'm not sure what this battle was about.

This is what it’s about: the forked project was NOT clear about the relationship to the original.

You're having a hard time seeing the side where one side has a trademark on the project name and logo, and the other side is using those without permission?

"Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked? "

- GPL is defines copyright permissions for the software code: copying, modifying, and redistributing.

- Trademark protection controls use of a name, logo, slogan, or branding.

“Notepad++” is a protected trademark, so a fork is allowed to use the GPL-covered source code any way it wants, but it can not use the trademark Notepad++ in a way that suggests it is the original project or is endorsed by it.

It would be like someone forking GnuCash from GPL code and calling then it "Quicken for Linux." The source code can be forked, but the Intuit trademark prevents someone from using the name Quicken because it could confuse users.

> Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked?

No, in the same way the GPL does not specify the user must use their own computer to develop the fork rather than taking the upstream maintainer's laptop home without asking.

The GPL grants no rights whatsoever to use the name, just the code.

> Linux is GPL'ed and the name Linux is also trademarked. But if I decided to port it to run on a lava lamp, what would be wrong with my calling the project "Linux for Lava Lamp"?

You can do this not because Linux is GPL, but because Linus Torvalds has authorized certain uses of this trademark in some form; I could not find specific information for Linux, but the Linux Foundation provides reference: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/brand-guidelines

It’s the intersection of copyright and trademark law, where lots of folks get tripped up. The fork had a website that used the trademark owner’s trademark without permission. It has nothing to do with copyright or code.

You said: "and support expectations clear,"

Therein lies the rub. By not honouring the trademark, the fork made the association of service, support, otherwise to Notepad++ making it seem like it was officially supported.

Imagine if someone who used the fork attempt to get support on a product that wasn't supported and, when faced with limited responsiveness, etc. decided to denigrate the original developer by lambasting them on HackerNews, et al. The reputational damage alone would be seen as a reason to defend the mark.

I work with a very large OSS nonprofit who has trademarks in most of the geos around the world and vigourously defends them for precisely this reason: reputational damage undercuts the community, the developers, and the reason for existence.

The code is GPL, not the name.

How many forks do you know which have the same name as the original.

Imagine the confusion if Firefox is compatible with some feature but Firefox and Firefox aren’t.

Imagine who gets angry emails if the MacOS port does any damage and people google for the author of Notepad++

Just look what the author of curl get because people found curl somewhere and googled his name or found it in the source

https://daniel.haxx.se/email/toc.html

[dead]