I see the average reading comprehension level on /. has decreased significantly since I last read it a decade ago.

Our goal was self-preservation, to ensure our ability to retain use of the name in the face of the HLT community's aggressive efforts to exclude us and establish itself as "the real Koha". I don't think that goal readily qualifies one way or the other on the "noble and worthy" scale, but it should not surprise anyone that we would pursue actions to keep using a name that we have rights to.

Actually, we want the reverse that; we want to transfer the TM to a non-profit trust (potentially HLT) that will grant us license to continue to use the name in perpetuity. The official press release is at http://www.liblime.com/ptfsliblime-granted-provisional-use-of-koha-trademark-in-new-zealand.

You obviously know dangerously little about the history of this project, the principals involved, and business in general. That's more than I'm willing to correct.

There were others, but I turned them down because they were poor code.

Koha is written in Perl. There's no (practical) way to distribute a binary. We make our code freely available through Github.

This is probably the fairest assessment I've seen, save that PTFS doesn't "confuse users into thinking theirs is the only version" any more than the HLT community does.

This is patently false. LibLime's Koha git repo is available on Github: https://github.com/liblime/LibLime-Koha. HLT community members have even submitted pull requests to our project.

Yes, your divisive and herd-ish community is a real trust broker.

Why not call HLT's project a different name?

One of HLT's tactics is to spin us as some mega-corp bully.

Please spend 30 seconds on the HLT mailing lists or IRC after mentioning LibLime's name. All of the following commentary will predictably be along the lines of "that's not *real* Koha" or "they have no right to use that name." Please cite one, just one, instance where PTFS/LibLime has said that about HLT. Just one.

No, I'm saying that in addition to their hostility and divisiveness (which is what has prevented PTFS from simply canceling the app when we found out about its existence), HLT is also incompetent. They let their own application fall to rot. If they had not done so, they could have (probably successfully) contested PTFS' claim. But this way it sure is useful for garnering attention and donations.

4) The actual story is not particularly weasely. HTL contracted Katipo Communications to write Koha in 1999. Katipo sold all of its Koha-related assets (including all its Koha copyrights and the koha.org domain) to LibLime in 2007. With the blessing of the community, LibLime also reserved the US trademark in 2008. The community split in 2008/2009. LibLime then sold its assets to PTFS in 2010, just after submitting the application for NZ trademark. 5) PTFS/LibLime does not try to convince anyone that theirs is the only Koha distribution. Conversely, HLT's community cannot seem to shut up about theirs being "real Koha". 6 ) Why the NZ app was filed is a mystery known only by the former LibLime owners. PTFS intends to hold the NZ TM for non-exclusive use, just as it has held the US TM for non-exclusive use for several years now, having never contested anyone else's use of the name.