Help us raise $200k to free JavaScript from Oracle

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Fundraiser and Deno’s Motives

  • Many commenters see the GoFundMe as a marketing/PR play by a VC‑backed, for‑profit company that could likely afford $200k itself, especially having raised >$20M.
  • Others argue it’s a legitimate public-good campaign: Deno has already been funding the case, all JavaScript users and educators could benefit, and it’s reasonable to ask the wider community to share costs.
  • Some say it would feel more credible if a neutral nonprofit (e.g. OpenJS or something akin to FSF) led the action instead of a single runtime vendor.

Legal Prospects and Risks

  • Strong skepticism that $200k is meaningful against Oracle’s vast legal budget; several believe Oracle can easily outspend Deno and drag the case indefinitely.
  • Others note the money is intended mainly for discovery (surveys, expert witnesses, evidence), and speculate that lawyers may be working pro bono for the prestige of beating Oracle.
  • Concern that “poking the bear” is risky: today enforcement is light; a loss could create precedent and embolden Oracle to actively police “JavaScript”.
  • Clarification that Deno is asking to cancel the mark (on grounds of abandonment, genericism, and alleged fraud on the USPTO), not to transfer it to themselves.

Practical Impact of the Trademark

  • Some commenters say the trademark has never affected them; they don’t care what the language is called and see this as a poor use of money compared to funding tooling, security, or infra.
  • Others point out that conferences, books, and educational products avoid using “JavaScript” directly out of legal caution, and that genericization would remove that risk.

Naming Debates and Rebranding Proposals

  • Many dislike the “JavaScript” name: originally a marketing move to ride the Java hype, still confuses non‑technical people and HR who conflate Java and JavaScript.
  • Counterpoint: in practice most developers just accept the name; confusion is seen as a competence/education issue, not a branding problem.
  • ECMAScript/ES is divisive: some advocate simply using the standard’s name; others find it ugly, hard to say, or reminiscent of “eczema”.
  • Long list of alternative names floated: JS, WebScript, BrowserScript, LiveScript, Mocha, various joke names (SelfishScript, SloppyScript, etc.). Several argue that coordinated rebranding would be easier and safer than litigation, but hard to execute given the massive existing JS corpus.

Broader Views on Oracle and Trademarks

  • Strong anti‑Oracle sentiment (seen as litigious, rent‑seeking), with some willing to donate “just to hurt Oracle”.
  • A minority argue Oracle has been a relatively “quiet” steward of the mark and that doing nothing (no monetization, minimal enforcement) is preferable to destabilizing the status quo.
  • Some broaden the critique to trademarks and corporate control of foundational tech generally; others remain indifferent, seeing this as a niche symbolic battle.