Case posted to website 13 Jul 2025, 13:55 UTC Dear Sir or Madam, My name is Mirai F., I am a German journalist currently researching domain ownership practices and the interaction between commercial vendors and open-source projects. In this context, I have a few questions regarding your ownership of the domain putty.org, which seems to be owned and advertising your company’s product: Why is the domain "putty.org" registered under your company’s name? What was the reason or background for acquiring this domain? How do you assess the fact that a commercial company like Bitvise is using the domain of a well-known non-profit project such as PuTTY? Do you consider it ethically or professionally appropriate for a for-profit entity to use a domain that could be seen as misleadingly connected to an open-source competitor? Do you believe that users searching for the PuTTY project will find relevant information on your site, or do you knowingly accept that this could cause confusion? Has there been any communication between Bitvise and the original PuTTY developers regarding the domain? If so, what was the outcome of that exchange? Would your company be willing to return or transfer the domain "putty.org" to the original PuTTY project? If not, what are the reasons for that decision? I would appreciate your perspective and an official statement on this matter. Best regards, Mirai F. From: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Reply-To: "Bitvise Support" <_____bitvise.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 18:58:15 +00:00 To: "_____@gmail.com" <_____@gmail.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Hello, you will find that your questions are answered in the FAQ at the bottom of the Putty.org page. The page is subject to frequent direct attacks, as well as domain squatters on misspelled domains, who copy the Putty.org page and provide links to malicious downloads. The page provides a service for PuTTY users to easily find the official download page. > Would your company be willing to return or transfer > the domain "putty.org" to the original PuTTY project? > If not, what are the reasons for that decision? The PuTTY project, or its author, did not originally own this domain. It is misleading to talk about "returning" a domain which the PuTTY project never had. What you dislike is that the page appears high in search results because it provides a useful service. But there are dozens of top-level domains, besides .org, which the PuTTY project could register, and use for its download page. Best regards, denis bider Bitvise Support From: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Reply-To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:02:53 +0200 To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Dear Mr. Bider, Thank you for your reply. I have reviewed the FAQ you referred to, as well as your answers, and appreciate that you took the time to respond. However, several key questions remain either unanswered or only partially addressed, particularly regarding the ethical and professional considerations. You mention that the domain was never owned by the PuTTY project, and thus cannot be "returned." While that may be factually correct, it does not address the central issue: *Do you consider it ethically acceptable for a for-profit company to control a domain that is so strongly and historically associated with a well-known open-source project – especially when that control could mislead users or divert trust?* You argue that the high ranking in search results is due to providing a useful service, yet the content simultaneously advertises Bitvise products. This raises the question of *whether Bitvise’s use of the domain is genuinely intended to serve the open-source community, or whether it primarily serves as a commercial gateway under the guise of a trusted name.* In light of this, I would like to ask again: - Has Bitvise ever approached the PuTTY maintainers to discuss an appropriate and transparent use of the domain name? - Would Bitvise, in principle, consider transferring the domain to the PuTTY project if a mutual understanding could be found? - And more broadly: How do you respond to the view that such a domain strategy risks undermining trust in the open-source ecosystem? Given that your use of the domain directly touches on questions of public interest and digital ethics, I would appreciate a clear and considered statement on the above. Best regards, Mirai F. From: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Reply-To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:18:38 +00:00 To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Hello, it speaks to the nature of someone's mind when the first thought that occurs to them is expropriation and confiscation, when other options are available. Best regards, denis bider Bitvise Support From: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Reply-To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:23:36 +0200 To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Dear Mr. Bider, Thank you for your response. It's telling that a reasonable journalistic question about ethical responsibility and transparency in domain ownership is met not with reflection or clarification, but with defensive insinuations about “expropriation and confiscation.” To be clear: asking whether Bitvise would *consider* returning a domain name widely associated with a longstanding open-source project — and widely perceived as such by the public — is not a call for confiscation. It's a question about integrity, good faith, and corporate ethics. Your refusal to engage with the core issue — namely, whether your use of *putty.org * is professionally and ethically justifiable — does not go unnoticed. Instead of addressing legitimate concerns about misleading branding, community confusion, or fair stewardship of digital resources, you’ve chosen to misrepresent the question itself. That speaks volumes — not about the mind of the person asking, but about the posture of the company answering. The fact remains: Bitvise profits from the public association with a respected open-source project by controlling a domain whose name implies official affiliation. Whether that is legally permissible is one question. Whether it’s *right* is another. That is the question you continue to avoid. I will include your responses — and your refusal to address the substance — accordingly in my reporting. Best regards, Mirai F. From: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Reply-To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:36:52 +00:00 To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Hello, Bitvise has not measured any profit from this domain. Bitvise SSH Client, which has similar functionality to PuTTY, is available free of charge for use in any environment. Almost no one purchases a license to use it. The difference is not one of profit, it is one of philosophy. You believe software can be managed by a committee. I believe software requires an owner, otherwise it is dead. Best regards, denis bider Bitvise Support From: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Reply-To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:39:01 +0200 To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Dear Mr. Bider, Thank you for your continued replies. Your latest message further confirms what your previous ones suggested: a refusal to engage with the actual ethical concern at hand. Your personal philosophy about software ownership — while certainly interesting — is entirely beside the point. The issue is not whether software should have an “owner,” but whether it is ethically defensible for a company to control a domain like *putty.org *, when it is clearly and publicly associated with a completely separate, long-standing open-source project — one that, in fact, *does* have an owner: Simon Tatham, its original and ongoing maintainer. Your use of the domain continues to blur the line between helpful redirection and intentional appropriation of name recognition. That you claim no profit is derived from it does not change the nature of the act. *Exploiting public association for visibility — even without direct commercial gain — is still a form of misrepresentation.* This is not about license models, software philosophy, or your personal views on committees. It’s about *digital ethics*, public trust, and transparency. These are not abstract concepts; they are fundamental to a healthy technology ecosystem. I will reflect the substance of your answers — and the conspicuous avoidance of the central issue — in my reporting. Best regards, Mirai F. From: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Reply-To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 19:52:44 +00:00 To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Hello, open source projects have a profound problem. This is that, by design, they fail to fund their own development. Consequently, open source projects meet one of two fates: - Most of them die. - Those that don't die, become controlled by large corporations and political entities. Count the open source projects that were started 30 years ago, and see who owns and controls them now. If you consider that, perhaps you will be better able to evaluate the importance of property. Best regards, denis bider Bitvise Support From: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Reply-To: "Mirai" <_____@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 21:59:21 +0200 To: "Bitvise Support" <_____@bitvise.com> Subject: Re: (Case _____) Inquiry Regarding the Domain Putty.org – Question Catalogue Dear Mr. Bider, Thank you for your reply. Your philosophical reflections on the challenges of open-source sustainability are noted — but once again, they serve primarily to distract from the actual issue at hand: *your company’s ongoing control of a domain name clearly and publicly associated with a completely unrelated open-source project.* You write about the “importance of property.” But the irony here is that *PuTTY — the project whose name you’ve appropriated — is very much alive.* It has been actively maintained for over two decades by its original creator, Simon Tatham. It is not dead, nor co-opted, nor abandoned. It continues to serve millions of users worldwide, exactly because it has earned their trust over time. And yet it is your company, not the PuTTY project, that owns putty.org — a domain which misleads users by its very existence. This is not about property or ideology. It’s about *clarity*, *transparency*, and *not exploiting public confusion* for competitive gain — even indirectly. Whether or not your intent was profit-driven, the outcome is the same: visibility and authority derived from a name that is not yours. There’s still an opportunity to align your actions with the ethical standards that underpin both the open-source and internet communities — by voluntarily transferring the domain to the PuTTY project or making clear that you are not affiliated. I’ll let readers judge for themselves what it says about a company that chooses not to. Best regards, Mirai F.