|
|
| The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Updated |
 |
|
Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT
|
I got email on this and I see mucho anguish on Slashdot. Why, oh why, some wonder, would lawyers be sending out letters in Australia, asking folks using the mark LINUX to formally license the mark? And *pay* for it? What is this? A violation of the spirit of openness? Doesn't the GPL mean you can do whatever you like with the name? Isn't Linus' policy that people can pretty much use the Linux name as long as they are decent about it? First, it's coming ultimately from Linus. There is a web site you can visit to verify that policing the mark has been given to the Linux Mark Institute by Linus, and the page is hosted by OSDL: WHO WE ARE:
As stated in our articles of incorporation, The Linux Mark Institute ("LMI") is an organization established "to protect the public and Linux® users of the world from unauthorized and confusing use of the Linux mark and to issue proper licenses to authorized users of the Linux mark." LMI is not designed to generate profits for anyone, which is why Linus Torvalds has given LMI primary sub-license rights for the mark. We work to protect legitimate uses of the LINUX trademark without burdening Linus Torvalds or any one entity with the financial responsibility of protecting the LINUX community's use of the mark.
The express and only purpose of this organization is to set up a simple, self-funding procedure by which interested companies and individuals developing Linux operating system products and those desiring to sell services, accessories and related Linux paraphernalia can obtain a non-exclusive and simple trademark license for the proper use of the mark.
Jon Hall of Linux International is overseeing disputes about this trademark effort for Linus. I think we can trust them both. So if they are doing this, we can safely assume they have good reasons. What are they?
Let's think about what trademark is and what it is for. Please remember that Linus didn't write trademark law. It is what it is. He can only work within the framework that others have established. Having said that, why would he care about the name Linux and how it is used? And what could happen if he doesn't show an interest in how the name is used by others? I've collected some information for you, so you can breathe normally again.
Why Linus Needs to Care
I don't know about you, but I get disturbed when I see antiLinux folk using the name Linux. For example, I thought it was loathsome to call the newsletter Linux Business Week, when all it was about was antiLinux material. I gather Business Week didn't much care for the name either, so they had to change the name. But what about Linux Insider? All they ever seem to report is antiLinux news. If I owned the Linux trademark, I'd want to make them stop, if I could. Or let's imagine for a moment. What if Microsoft decided that the ultimate purpose of its Linux Lab (note the name) is to put out a version of Windows, Windows apps running on a twisted, poorly functioning pseudo Linux kernel, and they decide to call it Windows Linux? I know. Impossible. But what if? Or SCO decides their next product line will be called Cymphonix Linux even thought it's actually Unix? I understand Cymphonix is a Linux product, actually, and they are now in a partnership with SCO, so let's just imagine it for a sec. Or what if some porn website sets up a Linux Freaky Sex site or something awful? Could Linus stop them from using the name? Such use would fall under the legal category of dilution, and here's a page that explains what that is with respect to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which expanded rights for famous marks beyond what the Lanham Act grants to all marks: Dilution causes of action are normally brought when the defendant's use of the mark causes either
* "Blurring", by which the connection in consumers' minds between the plaintiff's mark and the plaintiff's goods or services is weakened; or
* "Tarnishment", which means that the defendant's use is unsavory or unwholesome, or the mark is used in connection with inferior products. Obviously, Linus doesn't want either thing to happen to the good name of Linux. But can he stop it? Only if he has a protectable trademark on the name. When is a Trademark Infringed and How Does is Work?
Bitlaw explains trademark infringement: A mark is infringed under U.S. trademark law when another person uses a device (a mark) so as to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services involved. Multiple parties may use the same mark only where the goods of the parties are not so similar as to cause confusion among consumers. Where a mark is protected only under common law trademark rights, the same marks can be used where there is no geographic overlap in the use of the marks. Federally registered marks have a nation-wide geographic scope, and hence are protected throughout the United States.
Trademark law isn't like copyright. It's not automatic. Under trademark law, you simply must control the use of your mark by others or you can lose your mark, even if you've registered it. Bitlaw explains what you have to prove to win a trademark case: The elements for a successful trademark infringement claim have been well established under both federal and state case law. In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services. To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff. [emphasis added]
One of the ways you can show you have a protectable mark is to show that you license it to others using it, that not every Tom, Dick and Harry is out there using the same mark. If they are using it every which way, in what way does the name belong to you? That is what the trademark office or court will ask you. Here's a snip from "Legal Guide for Starting and Running a Small Business" by Fred S. Steingold, on what to do to police your mark properly, one section of a longer list: * Take prompt legal action if other businesses use your trademark without permission. A trademark may become weakened or even generic if others use it to describe their products and you do nothing about it. You or your lawyer should send a letter by certified mail (return receipt requested) demanding that the infringement cease. If your demand is ignored, be prepared to go to court to seek an injunction - but first do a careful cost/benefit analysis to satisfy yourself that it's worth the expense.
* If you discover that a newspaper or TV program has improperly used your trademark, send them a letter. Keep a copy in your records as proof that you have consistently enforced your trademark rights. Wikipedia confirms: Failure to maintain consistent quality can lead to abandonment of a mark, when the law will no longer protect the trademark because it has ceased to function as an indicator of a particular product. Marks may also be abandoned by "naked licensing", which involves the owner granting rights to use the mark to another party without sufficiently controlling how or on what they use it. The mark is then released for general use. (see also below under Policing Trademarks) . . . .
It is important to note that although there are systems which facilitate the filing, registration or enforcement of trade mark rights in more than one jurisdiction on a regional or global basis (eg. the Madrid and CTM systems, see further below), it is currently not possible to file and obtain a single trade mark registration which will automatically apply around the world. Trade mark laws are territorial in nature and generally apply only in the applicable country or jurisdiction, a quality which is sometimes referred to as ‘territoriality’. The last point is why separate registration and enforcement will have to be by country. Australia's trademark law and policies are explained here.
What's a Trademark For?
The International Trademark Association (INTA) has some great information on the subject, as you would expect. Here's what they say the differences are between trademarks, copyright and patents: A Trademark (®, ™, SM) protects a word, phrase, symbol and/or design used with a product or service on the market. A trademark is often referred to as a brand. Trademark rights may continue indefinitely, as long as the mark is neither abandoned by the trademark owner, or loses its significance in the marketplace as a trademark by becoming a generic term. For a full definition please see FAQ #1.
A Copyright (©) protects the original way an idea is expressed, not the idea itself. It includes artistic, literary, dramatic or musical works presented in a tangible medium such as a book, photograph or movie. This protection is given to works to prevent unauthorized copying. The general rule for a work created on or after 01-01-1978, is that the copyright lasts for the author's lifetime plus 70 years after the author's death, or 95 years after publication for a work made for hire.
A Patent protects a new and useful idea, which includes a process and/or machine. It is granted by the government, providing an inventor with exclusive rights to make, use and sell a patented invention. Patents have a fixed term, usually 17 to 20 years. Why Licensing and - Gasp - Fees?
Here's INTA on licensing your trademark: 3. Why is a licensor required to exercise quality control over a licensee's goods and services?
Control is needed because a trademark represents the trademark owner’s reputation for goods and services of a certain level of quality, and consumers tend to rely on this reputation in making purchasing decisions. If a licensor does not exercise sufficient control over the quality of the goods and services offered by the licensee, the trademark may, in some countries (for example, the United Kingdom), become vulnerable to attack by the licensee or a third party. In other countries, such as the United States, the trademark may be deemed abandoned.
A license will provide for quality control by the licensor by including provisions such as:
* Trademark Usage - The licensor may specify the manner in which the trademark will be used on or in connection with the goods and services of the licensee and on advertising and promotional materials. The licensee may be required to obtain the licensor’s permission before using any new presentation of the trademark.
The fees are a method of demonstrating ownership and control. Linus didn't just wake up one morning and decide to cash in on the name. It's about doing what the law looks to when deciding if he has a protectable mark. The fees also pay for the adminstrative tasks involved in policing the mark, registering the mark in various places, and approving licensees, etc. The fees are incredibly low, by the way. Here's the LMI fee structure:
Sliding Scale.
An Annual Fee is applied to each sublicensed trademark. The fee is set according to two factors: A) the for profit/non-profit status of your company or organization, and B) the aggregate gross revenue you expect to earn in the next fiscal year for goods/services associated with the mark in question. Marks grouped in a brand are treated as a single mark.
Non-Profit Tier
Annual Fee = US$200
For Profit/Other Tier 1
[This is a "grandfather clause" for written sublicenses executed prior to August 1, 2004]
Annual Fee = $0
For Profit/Other Tier 2
[Total projected annual gross revenue between zero and US $100,000]
Annual Fee = US $200
For Profit/Other Tier 3
[Total projected annual gross revenue between US $100,000 and US$200,000]
Annual Fee = US $500
For Profit/Other Tier 4
[Total projected annual gross revenue between US $200,000 and US $1 million]
Annual Fee = US $1000
For Profit/Other Tier 5
[Total projected annual gross revenue over US $1 million]
Annual Fee = US $5000 If you are making between $200,000 and a cool million using the name Linux, do you find it unreasonable that you pay a $1,000 to make sure the name continues to mean something? As you can note, you don't pay anything like that if you are a nonprofit. And you may not need a license anyway. In the US, there is a concept called fair use. If I write about Linux, for example, on Groklaw, I don't have to pay to use the name in a story. You don't either. There are preferred ways of indicating that I know it's a registered mark, however: How to publicly acknowledge that Linus Torvalds is the owner of the Linux trademark.
Attribution Is For Everyone
If your use of the Linux trademark doesn't fall under the scope of the Linux Sublicense, you should attribute ownership of the mark to Linus Torvalds in two ways:
1. For each web page, advertisement, or publication, the first prominent appearance of LINUX should feature the "circle R" character adjacent to the X, as follows:
Linux®
2. At the end of your web page, advertisement, publication or media broadcast, include the following text in a legible font and size:
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus
Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
But if I set up a business selling a Groklaw Linux for Lawyers distribution, let's say, then I'd have to pay to license the use of the name, or change the name. When I think about having to change the name, chancees are I'd rather pay, because the name has value. Who Needs a License? LMI has a very clear page all about this. Here's an excerpt: Who needs a linux® license:
To protect a registered trademark, the owner is required to "police" or control the use of the mark by others, under penalty of loss of the mark. Others may use or refer to a registered mark in some circumstances without a license from the owner if it is for a so-called "fair use," or in other cases they may need to obtain a license for the use. Some examples may help clarify the differences. Linus and LMI are not trying to develop a revenue source from licensing, so our interpretation of the trademark laws may be a bit more liberal than those of other trademark owners.
Examples of Fair Use.
If you are a journalist interested in writing articles that include the term "Linux," you do not need a sublicense. If you are printing up pencils, stenciling T-shirts, or distributing coffee cups with a legend on them like "Linux®is the greatest!" or "Even my Mother uses Linux®!" this is normally considered "fair use".
Trademarks: Use Requiring A Sublicense.
On the other hand, if you plan to market a Linux-based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government.
So, breathing better now? Remember that it's patents that are the bad guys. We depend on copyright to protect and enforce our GPL rights. And trademark is just another word for a good name, a name that stands for something. It's worth protecting. If it gets diluted by use by those with antiLinux agendas, the name won't mean much in the end. And that would be a crying shame. There's an established way to protect a trademark that is being followed by those delegated to do so. If we all cooperate, we can help Linus protect the good name of Linux. Sadly, the world isn't a paradise, where everyone loves one another and no one would deliberately do harm to their neighbor. Laws are a coping mechanism, a way to build a protective wall. Linus has no choice but to build that wall. We have to share the planet with those we may not like, but we don't have to let them abuse our good names. Speaking of abusing someone's good name, Jeremy Malcolm, the attorney in charge of sending out the licensing letters in Australia, has a long history of voluntary and pro bono work for the Internet and open source communities. This includes serving on the boards of the Internet Society of Australia, the Western Australian Internet Association, Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Society of Linux Professionals (WA) and the Australian Public Access Network Association. He also received the Community Award in the 2004 AUUG Australian Open Source Awards for outstanding contribution to the understanding of para-technical and legal issues surrounding open source within the Australian context. He isn't a Scientologist and never has been, by the way, although he believes in freedom of religion for all. Don't you hate it when the mainstream media doesn't bother to check their facts? Why do what they do, then? The community stands for ethics, does it not? UPDATE: For all of you who are still *positive* this is some kind of a "scam", I suggest you read what maddog wrote about it, posted to the Linux Australia email list. The poor man has spent $250,000 of his own money already, and the idea is to set up a self-supporting non-profit to carry the load. Read it and weep, those of you so quick to find fault, and then say you're sorry, please. Here's just a bit:
Since 1995, when an unfortunate incident in the United States showed us that
the world is not made of altruistic people and companies, Linux International
has been defending the Linux Trademark. At that time an entity had obtained a
US trademark on the word "Linux", and was trying to obtain twenty-five percent
of the REVENUES of companies that had the word "Linux" in their name, or in
their product names. Instead of all the member companies fighting this battle
individually, Linux International fought it and won. Unfortunately it cost us
a lot of money to do this, despite the pro bono efforts of Gerry Davis, of the
law firm of Davis and Schroeder.
Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark for the world, which
due to the costs of registering and obtaining International Trade Marks is
VERY expensive. Linux International has spent over 300,000 USD to do this
over the years. LI is a non-profit and does not have very much revenue, so
some of this money has come from my own personal checkbook. While I can not
say how much money I have spent on defending the mark per se, I can tell you
that I have spent about 250,000 USD of my own money in keeping LI alive. I am
not looking for medals or a chest to pin them on. I am only stating this to
show people that this is not a "scam", nor is anyone making any money off this
other than the international legal and trademark community, and I am sure that
they are necessary and justifiable fees. Certainly Jeremy Malcolm has seemed
to be above board and conscientious in all of our dealings with him, as has
Jonathan Oxer and the rest of the fine people at LAI.
After a while the board of Linux International recognized the advantage of
forming a separate non-profit, the Linux Mark Institute (LMI). We need LMI to
be self-funding, and following trademark laws in the 200 countries of the world
is very expensive. You might also like to read Linus explain trademarks.
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus
Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: robobright on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
| Remember to makes links clicky... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More justification for patent overhaul - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT
- PROTECTED ******* MARKS - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- Veddy Veddy In-tuh-esting, Mr. McBride - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Computerworld article that mentiones Linux and Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- News Picks Recomendations thread? - Authored by: raiford on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- Anyone know what sent SCOX over $5 on heavy trading? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Just a guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- Just a guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- Far OT : SCOX - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- The EPO has set up a website. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 08:58 PM EDT
- Microsoft XML patent to be challenged in South Africa. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- "Microsoft probing 'malicious' worm targetting Windows users" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:42 PM EDT
- "Novell to open Linux R&D center in Beijing by year end" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- Dept. 1127: going, Going, GONE! - Authored by: bsm2003 on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Over on The Register - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 05:38 AM EDT
- Blackdog - usb linux server - Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- Linux and cellphones - Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 03:23 PM EDT
- I don't think I'd like to use this system - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- "AMD hires IBM exec to head chip design" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- SCOG granted a patent - No 6,931,544 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 08:26 PM EDT
- FUD from LinuxInsider - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- IBM's Duncan: Microsoft "Putting Its Top Partners In A Corner" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 08:56 PM EDT
- "Project traces human ancestry and migration" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress has found itself in the middle of debate - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 09:39 PM EDT
- Rproxy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:01 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
| s.b. "formally" I think [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
Thankyou for clearing this up Pamela. I know Jeremy, and he represented me once
for free when I was being threatened (wrongly) for defamation and was unemployed
at the time. He's a good man.
Jeremy is actually considered a leading light in the Australian Open source
scene, and many people in australia have been quite upset to see him being
rubbished so wrongly in slashdot for what really is just some legal work to try
and protect linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: robobright on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
| ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
I guess this is an example of where the Linux community for once doesn't feel
the need to go change the law.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
"...Or what is some porn website sets up a Linux Freaky Sex site or
something awful?..."
No, no! Not X-rated penguins baring it all before the world... :)
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- They already have. - Authored by: Mecha on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- They already have. - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- They already have. - Authored by: sprag on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:36 AM EDT
- Mini Review: March of the Penguins - Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- Mini Review: March of the Penguins - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- Anthropomorphizing is not always a mistake - Authored by: fxbushman on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Anthropomorphizing is not always a mistake - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Anthropomorphizing is not always a mistake - Authored by: Fredric on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 06:43 AM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 06:58 AM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 07:12 AM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 07:21 AM EDT
- Modeling - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 07:02 AM EDT
- Mini Review: March of the Penguins - Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: sprag on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- different field, can't enforce the mark (AFAIK) - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- I had one of those! - Authored by: Dark on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 11:38 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: drakaan on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
Okay...somebody please correct me, because this just doesn't feel right. If
create a distro, and it has the word "Linux" in it (Fu-Man-Chu Linux,
for example), and I write that name on a website, I pay $200.00 or I'm in legal
trouble?
Somebody un-boggle me on this.
---
'Murphy was an optimist'
-O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Still Confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:32 AM EDT
- Still Confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- Still Confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- Still Confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:35 AM EDT
- Umbrella Org - Authored by: vrimj on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- LUGs - Authored by: Mecha on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- LUGs - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- LUGs - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 05:51 AM EDT
- LUGs - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Linux User's Groups - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- Change the Name - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- Still Confused... - Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- "Fu-Man-Chunix": OK. "Fu-Man-Chu *Linux*": fee required. - Authored by: greyhat on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- You could make up your own name like Knoppix - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Something is seriuosly wrong here..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- Double standards are always confusing. - Authored by: pallmall on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:23 PM EDT
- That's exactly right. This is extortion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 07:37 AM EDT
- Still Confused... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- If M$ agent steals Linux Trademark - Authored by: Mik Yelrem on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 02:33 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
Will many of the distros (e.g. on distrowatch.com) with Linux in their name need
to pay the not-for-profit fee to continue using the name?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
What if Microsoft decided that the ultimate purpose of its Linux Lab (note
the name) is to put out a version of Windows, Windows apps running on a twisted,
poorly functioning pseudo Linux kernel, and they decide to call it Windows
Linux?
Correct me if I'm wrong, not only would they be giving Linux a
bad name, but by being Windows Linux, that would hurt their own cause by
putting out a bad copy of thier own product, seems self defeating. But then
there are people who still believe WIN95 is in beta. :-)
And how much
open source is in Longhorn?
wb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
From what I could gather from the /. comments, the AU LUG was sending out
nastygrams and asking for money from people that were NOT abusing the mark. No,
I did not RTFA because I am lazy and did not want to register.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Malor on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
| I've been using Linux for a very, very long time, (somewhere in the 0.8 kernel
series) and I disagree completely that the anger is unfounded.
A
non-profit usage of the Linux trademark should be $1/year, payable in
advance for a 20-year term. It is just wrong to soak people who want to
release GPL distros for $200 year. Talk about a slap in the face... doing
all the work to build a distro for a specific purpose, but not being able to
call it Linux without coughing up? That is a pile of crap.
I'd have
no problem whatsoever with charging for-profit distros, like, say, Mandrake or
Red Hat. And perhaps there should be a special mark for those who voluntarily
choose to send in some extra money.
But the word Linux, while it can't be
100% free because of trademark law, should be licensed for the cheapest possible
fee. I'm suggesting the $20 minimum, but even that might be too high. What
if some guy in China who makes 25 cents a day wants to call HIS product Linux
and distribute it in Australia? $20 would be a real hardship...$200 is
totally unworkable.
Folks in Australia are right to be upset. The kernel
itself, as Richard Stallman is so fond of reminding us, is only a very small
portion of the overall system. The rest of userspace has inherited the kernel's
name, more or less by default. A full, running Linux system has an absolutely
huge amount of code in it that Linus didn't write, didn't manage, and isn't
responsible for. Claiming a $200 toll just for writing the kernel is
absolutely unreasonable.
I have steadfastly refused to use the term
GNU/Linux, but for the first time, I'm seriously reconsidering that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I completely agree with you... n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: Mecha on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- I also agree with you... - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM EDT
- I think you are overreacting - Authored by: mickkelly on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: alisonken1 on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- I agree! - Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- Agreed, $1/year is too high - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: capt.Hij on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Devil's Advocate - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- You have misunderstood, it is not that bad at all - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Please post a business plan - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- So linus should pony up with the money to maintain the trade mark. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- The Linux® Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:56 AM EDT
- pile of stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- Linus knew that the mark was bogus - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 01:24 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Thank you PJ. Nice to have everything explained so clearly :)
Ever thought of becomming a /. moderator, looks like they could use some help
:-p
Myx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
I suppose the creation of Linux-specific free open source programs with
"Linux" in the name, say SYSLINUX or SELinux, is officially over thus?
I for one can't see how anybody would agree to pay $200 a year for the pleasure
of being the author of a GPL:ed program.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
PJ, you made me laugh. I just realized who Jon Hall was, because I've been
calling him "maddog" for so long. It took me by surprise.
:-)
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
So Darl will have to license Linux in order to sell his Linux License!
Isn't that special?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
Time to donate a new name to the public domain so we can all use it for free. As
in BEER.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Saturn on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
... the 'Penguin-like Kernel Personality' due to trade mark licensing
problems."
You can see it coming can't you
:)
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
I remember, years ago, when BSDi did this. Actually, it was even slimier,
because -- while some of the same people were involved -- BSDi did not invent
BSD (neither the OS nor the name).
It still leaves an awfully bad taste
in my mouth.
Here's the ironic thing: the people who will most abuse the
GPL, by hiding
the kernel as much as humanly possible, will not have to pay a
dime, while those
who are trying to "spread the word" suddenly have to start
anteing up.
Neither beer nor speech, it seems.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
| So does anyone remember why un*x was spelled un*x? Hint. The Wikipedia article
doesn't say much about it, but my recollection is that a big part was that
AT&T/USL was sending nasty letters to people using the Unix® name
without authorization. Hmmmm.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- lin*x - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- lin*x - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:16 PM EDT
- lin*x - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 21 2005 @ 01:08 PM EDT
- lin*x - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 06:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
If I made a distribution called "Paranoia", in a "secure by default"
configuration, with all sorts of security features added, for example, and then
in the documentation noted that the kernel is based on Linux® kernel 2.X
(whatever), and that Linux is a trademark or registered trademark of Linus
Torvalds in the USA and other countries, and that the bulk of the other material
is from GNU (or is it GNU®, needing its own attribution?), would there be any
actual need for me, if I were an Aussie, to license the Linux
trademark?
And what about a users group? Linux is a trademark that
describes a particular operating system. A users group is not the basis for the
Linux trademark. Further, does/did Apple go after Apple users groups over
trademark issues? Does/did Microsoft go after Windows users groups? Solaris?
(Are there any?) Etc.
And finally, what's with the sliding scale of
fees? If the administrative fee is to cover the cost of licensing the various
entities, then the little guy would actually be paying more, because it's harder
to locate him, versus a company that's actively promoting and profiting from its
versions of Linux. The big guy is probably well known and easy to police in
comparison to the little guy. Therefore, the sliding scale of fees is specious.
The bigger you are, the less effort is needed, and yet the bigger guy
pays more because it's "reasonable". "From each according to his
ability..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
Suggestion: A good price to charge a non-profit (e.g. LUG's et al) to license
the Linux trademark would be ... contribute code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
How long will it be before Groklaw becomes Groklaw®, now that Linux® has gone
commercial.
Thoughts about the price of everything and the value of nothing spring to
mind.
To be safe I will use "Lin*x and Gr*klaw" from now on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
PJ, you mention in passing that
[Jeremy Malcolm] isn't a
Scientologist and never has been, by the way, although he believes in freedom of
religion for all.
Readers may be wondering why this is relevant, so
allow me to elaborate a bit. Mr. Malcolm represented the Church of Scientology
in legal action against some of its critics, which caused many /. posters to
have a low opinion of him; as a result these posters jumped to the conclusion
that his actions were not above-board. This seems to be a fairly
even-handed statement about the CoS matter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Scientology? - Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Well said, but: - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 11:02 PM EDT
- Good Samaritan - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 20 2005 @ 08:04 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
This is somehow related to PJ's article, so I don't post it under
"OT".
Some of you may know, that FOSS graphics software doesn't provide
the use of spot colours, such as Pantone. The reasons always mentioned are
problems with trademarks and copyrights.
Assumed, I want to use spot
colours in GIMP or Inkscape and also assumed, the software would provide, say,
"Pantone(R) 134". It doesn't violate a trademark since it doesn't pretend to be
a Pantone(R) product. Technically, it only tells the printer to produce an extra
plate and use that colour for printing, nothing else.
From the trademark
perspective, developers seem to be off the hook, but now copyrights enter stage.
On Pantones Website I
can find the following information: "An unauthorized claim by third parties
either as principals or agents, inferring that any referenced color or color
system is the same as, or equivalent to, a color standard or color system of
Pantone, may be a violation of Pantone’s proprietary rights and is strictly
prohibited. Similarly, any cross-referencing, in whole or in part, to any
PANTONE Color System including, but not limited to, the PANTONE Numbers and
PANTONE Colors, by third parties, may be a violation of Pantone’s proprietary
rights and is strictly prohibited."
How can simple referencing to a
number of a colour be protected by copyrights? If this were true, I would also
infringe copyrights, if referenced to a Microsoft manual. Is this an attempt to
confuse trademarks and copyrights to extract (very expensive) license fees from
software companies?
Maybe some of the legally trained folks can help me
out here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: m_si_M on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: CraigRinger on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: rc on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Wanderer on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 02:38 AM EDT
- In that case - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 06:09 AM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 06:55 AM EDT
- try this ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:38 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- Pantone - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:50 PM EDT
- Pantone [example of lock in] - Authored by: Zarbo on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
If I was running a business (which I hope to have some day) and it was making
a profit in relation to the open source communities (I think I've decided my
first business should be a shop to build Linux PCs, include informal training
and such) then I'd deffinitely want to have a sound name in Linux. I don't see
any reason not to abide by the licensing of the trademark to help protect the
community.
Considering the level of ethics I choose to walk, the
licensing seems to me to be a bit low so I'd probably be more inclined to
include a donation amount. That's just me however. I'd have to agree with P.J.
that what Linus has decided is a good thing.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
I wonder where I stand with my domain name (silly pun on
Linux and Nick)?
Much like windows and Lindows...
Nick ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
| If something isn't in Google, it isn't worth knowing :-). So, let's look up
users groups.
Paint Shop Pro Users Group, Windows Users Group Network, Lego
Users Group Network, Arizona Macintosh Users Group, International Oracle Users
Group, Zaurus User Group, AppleWorks Users Group, UK Unix and Open Systems User
Group,
Belgian Java User Group, New Zealand VW User group...
Do we think all
these groups are licensing the trademarks they use in their names? Does this
come under fair use, because a "users group" is by definition people using a
product, not providers of any good or service that can be confused with the
original product? There is certainly no issue of "blurring" or "tarnishment."
Look at the Bitlaw definition: "A mark is infringed under U.S. trademark law
when another person uses a device (a mark) so as to cause confusion as to the
source or sponsorship of the goods or services involved." A users group does
not generally provide goods or services, and it is well understood that the
users do not represent the owner of the trademark.
Perhaps by the time I post
this, a lawyer will have weighed in on the subject. But I do not see anything
that would require a LUG to have a license to use Linux in its name.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
"Trademark rights may continue indefinitely, as long as the mark is neither
abandoned by the trademark owner, or loses its significance in the marketplace
as a trademark by becoming a generic term."
Is Lin*x not already a generic term for the GNU/Lin*x operating system? I think
it is generally agreed that it is used for much more than only the kernel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FreeChief on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
Linus Torvalds did not invent the name Linux, and was not the first to register
it as a trademark.
Read a couple more sentences before you toss this in the Troll Bin. Sorry, I
have no clicky link for this, just my own memory, maybe someone with mad search
skills can fill it in.
Back in Elder Days, when nobody cared about Linux except Hackers and Gentlemen,
and Linus Torvalds lived in Finland, Mr.Torvalds, who is a modest man (with
nothing to be modest about), wrote a little OS kernel that he wanted to call
Freex. The Hacker community did not like that name, and the community was
right. By popular acclaim the unknown kernel was named Linux, in honor of the
honorable Linus.
All was well until several years later when, in one of the first cases of
SCOundrelous behaviour, some guy who lived north of Boston went to the USPTO and
registered Linux as a trademark name for an OS. Nobody would have even noticed,
but he sent out letters demanding payment for the use of his trademark.
It could have been big trouble, but in this case the US courts were on the side
of justice. The community sent a few lawyers after him, they explained to the
judge that Linux was the name of an OS that had existed for years, and that the
fool in Boston had nothing to do with it, and in fact did not even have any
software of his own under any name at all. The judge re-assigned the trademark
to Mr.Torvalds, who said thanks and went back to thinking about virtual memory
and process schedulers.
LMI was formed so that we won't have to worry about that ever again. Call your
own dog Linux if you want to, but call your software that and you have the
Maddog to answer to. (He's not that hard to answer.)
--Programmer in Chief
PS: I call him Mr.Torvalds partly out of respect, and partly because it takes me
three trys to type Linus with an "s" on the end. Really. Actually
that last one only took two tries.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
Why couldn't a community of volunteers do the job? The current fees are too
high for Mom & Pop type operations and are not in the spirit of the freedom
the GPL is meant to protect (which is not to say the GPL applies, except in
spirit.)
Of course, instead of "Linux," one could always call the OS
"GNU" -- or is that trademarked, too?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
...that you can take a huge amount of other people's code and put it on a CD and
call it anything but Linux and make no payment to anyone and make yourself a
fortune.
Very odd indeed.
Alan(UK)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
How did MS trademark Windows®?
Surely the term was already in common use and being used extensively within the
computer industry. Does this mean we can take any common word and trademark it?
Just wondering.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toller8 on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
Ok, I have to take some responsibility for the Tempest, since I was the person
"quoted" in the original Age/Sydney Morning Herald article. As a long
time Groklaw reader (only recent account tho!) I guess I'd better speak up.
The letter I recieved was *very* unclear as to intentions, the Stat Dec I was
asked to sign was suggesting things that I could not honestly sign, and as it
turned out when I communicated with Jeremey, I was not the "type" of
business he was looking for. He needed a Stat Dec to support the Australian
trademark case not a case of someone rolling over because they recieved a legal
letter.
In the end, it turned out to be an issue of a letter from a person who was
looking for some specific situation but did not communicate any of that
effectively. I suggested he reword it appropriately but I'm guessing that he
didn't.
In all, a storm in a teacup.
Regards,
Richard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
The use of the Linux trademark could come in handy to
kill off use of the Linux trademark for anti-Linux FUD.
What is to stop Microsoft setting up a website called
"Linux benchmarks labs" or "Linux-insider" as a conduit
for orchestrated anti-Linux FUD, under the pretense that
it is a Linux site giving impartial information? Why
the Linux trademark of course. Wait a minute,
Linux-insider has already been done, perhaps time for
Linus to write to Linux-insider and them them to
desist from using his trademark.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
Perhaps M$ will start using it somewhere, somehow, in their Linux® research lab
effort. MicroTux© perhaps?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Micro-Tux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:20 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
The Australian Trade Marks Act 1995, section 12
2 defines what is a non infringing use of a trademark.
In it, one
can find this text
(1)(c) the person uses the trade mark in
good faith to indicate the intended purpose of goods (in particular as
accessories or spare parts) or services; or
So, if any of
you folks out the claim to be providing "Linux support" or similar, you're most
likely off the hook anyway. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
The Australian Trade Marks
Act 1995, section 12
2 defines what is a non infringing use of a trademark.
In it, one
can find this text
(1)(c) the person uses the trade mark in
good faith to indicate the intended purpose of goods (in particular as
accessories or spare parts) or services; or
So, if any of
you folks out the claim to be providing "Linux support" or similar, you're most
likely off the hook anyway. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kevin on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
A Certain Large Software Vendor, who shall remain nameless, asserts trademark in
a common word to name its operating system, which shall also remain nameless.
It also asserts that it is a violation of its trademark to claim in any
advertising or documentation that a piece of third-party software runs on the
Nameless operating system without permission of A Certain Large Software Vendor.
(Permission is granted only under certain onerous conditions.)
Will I now need to pay $200 to assert that a given version of a program is the
version for Mr. Torvald's operating system, as opposed to the version for the
one from Mr. McNealy's company or that from Mr. Gates's? Or that it's capable
of running on that operating system at all?
Yes, I trust maddog not to carry things to that ludicrous extent. But I suspect
that his institution will soon find itself the target of multiple lawsuits from
somebody, go bankrupt, and have the trademark (or the exclusive right to market
it) disposed of by the bankruptcy trustee to someone who will. Do you think
that Some Large Company's stooges won't be able to find a way to make that
happen?
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
I cannot comment about what that particular lawyer did--I don't honestly know.
I can only hope that his conduct was both professional and ethical and indeed, I
make no claims to the contrary simply because I am not familiar with his
practice.
That said, Scientology critics routinely run afoul of the Scientology lawyers
who, according to those critics, have something other than religious freedom in
mind. I seem to recall where Scientology operatives (in Operation Snow White)
stole or attempted to steal all sorts of government documents and such that
would make them look bad, but then got caught. They weren't just any
operatives, either, but the very top echelon of the group's leadership. L. Ron
Hubbard himself would've been at least questioned had he not been in
international waters or out of the country at that time. I seem to recall where
Scientologist organizations were sanctioned for barratry because they use
lawsuits to silence their critics, etc.
Now, you are absolutely correct that that's no reason to cast aspersions upon
this particular lawyer. Even if he has represented them, that doesn't mean
anything other than that he believes everyone is entitled to represenation.
That said, after the shenanigans I've seen the Scientologists emply, I'd
consider having worked for them akin to having worked for SCO--it doesn't in and
of itself prove that you're unethical, but it at least generates enough
suspicion that I would want to closely examine just how ethical his past
behavior was. LMI may be perfectly trustworthy, but making sure that the
lawyers representing them have a high standard of ethics is perfectly reasonable
for anyone anticipating dealing with them.
From the SCO saga, we all know how bad unethical (even if not necessarily
illegal conduct) by a lawyer can be, and I can only think that if more people
looking for representation were more demanding that their lawyers be ethical,
the courts would be less intimidating to those of us outside the legal
profession.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
You are thinking in US terms only. In particular you are thinking in US dollar
terms only. Lift your head up and look at the rest of the world. $200US may seem
like postage and handling to you. To someone in a developing country it is a
year's wages. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
I don't choke too much on the not for profit license because I have seen too
many that were really "no stock holders but we all get very well
compensated" organizations.
I do choke on the less than $100,000 gross $200 dollar fee. I think there
should be a less than $25,000 or so filing fee of around $5 for the LUG's and
folks who do some casual support work so they are helping grow Linux but not
really making serious money at it. If I have to bend I would rather see the
ceiling drop to $10,000 than the fee go to $10. $200 is significant money to
these folks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: deadline on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
| It all sounded good until I got to the fees. LMI can charge a lot less and still
protect Linux. They chose to gouge the open source community.
I expect
more of this kind of thing. It is just a easy way to make money off the back of
those who did the actual work. Lets, see, we also need a vi institute,
Apache institute, PHP institute, perl institute, oh my,
there is a boat load of money to be made!
Thanks LMI, your efforts will do
more harm to open source than Microsoft or SCO ever could. You just put toll on
the free exchange of software. Good going guys. Enjoy your money. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: EireannX on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
The storm was created as I understand it, not by the fact that Linus wanted
to nail down his trademark, but by the approach taken by
intermediaries.
From The
lawyer apparently involved's FAQ
Why do you want me to stop using
the word Linux?
I don't. The letter is not about that. The letter is simply
saying that if you are using the word to identify your business or its products
or services, we want you to help Linus out by signing a declaration to say that
you are doing so under licence from his agents LMI
Now to me not
being a lawyer, that sounds like scam. I sign a statutory declaration saying I
am using the term Linux under licence from this LMI mob and then when they
decide the licence fees, I have to cough up or drop the term from my name. That
may not have been the intention, it may have been wholly altruistic, but these
people are supposedly lawyers, and to write these things and make themselves
sound like a con act is really a work of artistic merit.
Of course maybe
they were dancing around the fact that Linus doesn't own the trademark to Linux
in Australia, there is simply an application in place to get the trademark
assigned to his name. I didn't receive the letter but I got supposed exerpts
from
here.
You may or may not be aware that it is your legal
responsibility to obtain a licence from the Linux Mark Institute before you are
allowed to use the word "Linux" as part of your product or service name or
brand.
Which, if Linus' trademark application has not been
processed yet is, I believe, factually untrue. If I receive a strongarming
document with provable untruths (is that an oxymoron?, but you should get what I
mean) then I think 'scam' And for the strongarming bit I refer to:
Normally a licence from LMI costs USD$300 to USD$600, however LMI is
prepared to ratify your previous use of the "Linux" trade mark and to waive its
rights against you for any previous trade mark infringements, provided that you
complete, sign and return the declaration that is attached to this letter.
The lawyer in questions seems to have tried to cover the factual
bases with this (from the ilaw site) How can Linus Torvalds or LMI have
existing rights over the word Linux if it's not registered here?
Because
there is such a thing as an unregistered or "common law" trade mark whereby a
person acquires rights in a name just by using it.
Except this would
suggest that all companies that are currently using Linux have acquired said
rights, and Linus hasn't because he is not commercially active in Australia.
These companies have been using the name for a reasonable length of time now,
and I would imagine any common law rights Linus could assert against these
companies would have elapsed by the very fact that he did not defend his
trademark against them up to now
Hence the request that companies
currently using the Linux trademark sign statuatory declarations signing away
any rights they may have acquired to the Linux name by using it commercially and
assigning them to Linus through the LMI. None of which I have a problem with in
principle, but the way these groups approached the practical side of
appropriating the disparate rights which caused the issues.
If it were
approached correctly, the request could have revolved around the protection of
the Linux brand in Autralia, upon which many of these companies rely, and
acknowledging in the statutory declaration that the trademark of Linux in
Australia should belong to Linus Torvalds as originator of the platform.
In the current society, it has been entrenched in me not to trust
either lawyers or corporations. So if a TLA corporation asks me to sign away my
rights to them, even when they claim it is on Linus' behalf, and inform me that
they may then levy fees on me for the activities I used to own the right to
perform freely until I signed them over, and then threaten me that I am already
infringing a trademark they haven't even had granted yet, and that may never be
granted if I retain my rights, then yes I would be on my guard.
I guess
the whole point is ask an ye may receive. Push and my default position is to
push back. Especially if you are a lawyer, a corporation, or a Nigerian who just
happens to have discovered me as the long lost relative of a family wiped out in
a freak tidal wave. (Ok in that last instance you probably won't recieve,
regardless of how you ask)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
| Ok, I can understand wanting to charge commercial users in order to fund their
non-profit center.
But $200/year for NON PROFIT usage is
insane!
Just calling it Knoppix or BeefcakeOS or whatever is not a solution!
Can they even say "BeefcakeOS is based on the Linux kernel?" And every distro
on bootup says Linux on the screen. Are we supposed to rewrite the bloody
kernel to remove all traces of the word Linux for nonprofit distros? Most GPL
programmers get really angry if someone takes their software and just
renames it without making substatial code changes. Is that what Linus really
wants??
What about Linux Users Groups? What are they supposed to call
themselves now?
This is just plain stupid, and I'm dissapointed in Linus'
lack of foresight. Oh well, even great men make mistakes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You are not renaming the KERNEL... - Authored by: Mecha on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT
- This is NOT a good thing. - Authored by: PM on Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 11:12 PM EDT
- Most GPL programmers get really angry... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 12:45 AM EDT
- Principle is sound, only the non-profit price is too high - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 03:35 AM EDT
- Unbelievable - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 06:54 AM EDT
- Unbelievable - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- Unbelievable - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Unbelievable - Authored by: Wanderer on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 03:16 AM EDT
- This is NOT a good thing. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 07:29 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
From all the complaints about potential Linux trademark license fees I see here,
it seems to me that what people really want is an OS that is "free as in
beer", and "free as in freedom" seems to be a secondary issue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 04:00 AM EDT |
Ok, but why only Australia? Why Australia at all???
Shouldn't Linus (or his trademark defenders) pursue lbw and linuxinsider as
well?
How would this licensing scheme in Australia stop them???
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 04:34 AM EDT |
"At that time an entity had obtained a US trademark on the word
"Linux", and was trying to obtain twenty-five percent of the REVENUES
of companies that had the word "Linux" in their name, or in their
product names. Instead of all the member companies fighting this battle
individually, Linux International fought it and won."
...not a Linux community problem. Linux will survive ultimately because of the
unpaid efforts of the many. If it is outlawed due to legal problems it will
just go underground, but it will survive. Samizdat works:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
That seemed overly hostile...
1. First of all, it was a question, not a statement.
2. Second, yes, of course the major players will gladly pay, but the small
not-for-profit players will have to go with other names (as far as I can
understand).
3. Third, yes, of course the projects themselves will not be affected. But they
won't be called FooLinux or LinuxFoo (as far as I can understand).
And, by the way, I never said this was a bad idea.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
The trademark is there, not to make things difficult for people like you, but to
be able to prevent organizations like Microsoft and TSCOG from using the Linux
name to promote things that are NOT Linux.
You need a licensing scheme in order to be able to REVOKE a license.
If you do not police any misuse of the license, it is not enforcable and thus,
void.
Policing the license cost money.
Money that someone has to pay. Part of this will come from the licensing
scheme.
Also keep in mind that this has NOTHING to do with Linux the OS. It is all about
Linux the name. If the name is to have meaning in the future, it needs to be
protected from misuse like Linux Insider.
The letters sent out to people using the Linux name without a license HAVE to be
sent, or the Trademark will be void. This is nothing at all like the SCO Linux
license, because it is not at all about Linux the OS but about the name, and it
is required by law if you want to be able to protect the name.
The choice is simple. Police the name by sending out letters like you mention,
or lose the right to the name.
What is the better choice? Being required to get a license to use the Linux
name, or maybe risk "Windows Linux" or some such silliness.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kinrite on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
I have just done a quick sample of random sites after Googling for Linux®
(174000000 hits), and none of the first 5 sites had any Linux attribution at all
on their home pages.
Perhaps we could all spare some time to send some polite emails to sites not in
compliance with the LMI requirements, pointing out what they need to do to
become legal.
I for one, will make a start straight after posting this.
---
"Truth is like energy...it can not be created, nor destroyed"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Seeing the update and the sob story about maddog, I'm still disgusted with the
situation. Getting the Linux trademark switched was a good thing because nobody
has the right to take 25% of a company's revenue over the L*nux name. But in
the spirit of open source, if it costs this much to keep the L*nux trademark
alive, then let it die. If it becomes untrademarkable, then nobody can charge
us fees for it, and who cares who might abuse it.
I have no sympathy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
| This is just like Orson Welles' version of War of the Worlds. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
I mean: look at all those OpenSomething products. There's OpenThis and OpenThat,
and while a few of them are legitimately calling themselves "Open"
because they're developed as Open Source most are just riding the
"Open" hype and nothing about the product is in any way
"open". Even SCO sells a product named "OpenServer".
So "Open" means nothing at all anymore and the reason for that is that
it was no protected trademark and noone cared. If the name "Linux" is
to mean something in the future then it needs to be trademarked (that already
happened) *and* someone has to take care that there's really Linux inside if
advertised as such, else "Linux" will soon have the same meaning as
"Open" i.e. none.
It's important that someone protects the trademark (trademark law says so), and
it makes sense that it has to be that way, that a trademark has to be used and
that someone has to care. Even so there's some trademarkhogging going on, we
don't want it to get as bad as the worst times of domainhogging so that every
other word and a good lot of pronouncable lettercombinations are trademarked
"just in case".
For someone who sells Linux and uses the trademark in advertising it makes even
economical sense: He pays an organisation that takes care of the trademark so
not everyone can sell any bullshit under the name "Linux" and in the
process make the name worthless.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
Since 1995, when an unfortunate incident in the United States
showed us that the world is not made of altruistic people and
companies,
PJ, I confess I was a bit surprised you
didn't mention one William R. Della Croce, and his registration in the U.S. of
the "Linux" trademark, in your original article. That story is indeed grim
evidence of the need for defense of the "Linux" trademark.
---
"When
I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Trademarks.html#Trademarks
Please do not include any trademark acknowledgements in GNU software packages or
documentation.
Trademark acknowledgements are the statements that such-and-such is a trademark
of so-and-so. The GNU Project has no objection to the basic idea of trademarks,
but these acknowledgements feel like kowtowing, and there is no legal
requirement for them, so we don't use them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
I can't find the ® key. (That one I just pasted from TFA). Perhaps it's
because I am still using an IBM AT keyboard ;-)
Looks like we are going to need it a lot in future.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
Here's another instance of somebody who accomplished something coming under fire
from those who haven't. People who haven't gotten off their butts and tried to
do something have the luxury of imagining that there's some obvious way of doing
it better.
PJ's been on the receiving end of quite a bit of this too.
Be nice if these armchair quarterbacks would bestir themselves to do something,
and then show us by their example how to do things better.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
| Hell hath frozen over!
Linux vs.
Windows: TCO Comparison
"Contrary to what the headlines would have us
believe, the biggest threat to Microsoft's continued dominance, at present, is
not Linux. It is older versions of Windows. The biggest threat to Linux is not
Microsoft, but rather integration and interoperability issues among various
Linux distributions and their applications."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
| Why is there always these hidden costs? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: glimes on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
Everyone seems up in arms about these demand letters
sent out to Linux User's Groups.
Can we see the text of the letters, please, before we
start frothing at the mouth?
Or did I miss where this was already posted?
---
Greg "Dammit Jim, I'm a Programmer, not a Lawyer" Limes
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
Everybody has in the past avoided trademark infringement by using
"*nix". So I guess now its "*inux".
Ok, IMNAL, I'm an engineer. Correct me, flame me, I dont care. But this is
really bothering me. PJ is pro, some are against, and I'm just confused.
Personally, I think the non-profit people, those that make and distribute
distro's just for fun (think Knoppix), should have the ability to contribute to
the "trademark" fund voluntarily - as they can afford, but have the
ability to be granted license to use the "Linux" name for free.
People like Novell, Red Hat, et. al., have no problem paying for the trademark,
and should by all means be contributing. Yes, I understand the need to protect
the "Linux" name from infringement and misuse.
But here's my problem. Having to pay to use the name "Linux", having
to make sure that I dont run afowl of the law and have letters from attorneys on
my doorstep scares me. I cant afford to pay $200/yr, plus paperwork, etc, etc.
for something that is a hobby. And that's if I can convince whomever that I'm
non-profit. Does that mean I have to set up a non-profit orginization, with
paperwork, to qualify?
Ok, how about this scenario? I write function "foobar.c" that adds
something useful to the kernel. My changes are accepted by Linus, and becomes
part of the kernel tree. I cant take that kernel that has my contributions in
it, put it on my website to everybody to enjoy, advertise to the world (and
Google) by saying that it is "Linux" without having to buy the
trademark? Isn't that a disincentive to contribute in the first place.
I am having a very hard time with this. I love Linux, I use Linux, I am Linux
advocate. Now, there seems to be less freedom than before. Somehow, this just
doesn't feel right. I almost feel like chucking the whole thing and switching
to BSD just to feel safe from lawyers.
Ok, go ahead and flame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
Amazing. The fellow should have asked for help much sooner. He deserves a
"Noble" prize!
I decided to join Linux International but there are only
two kinds of membership described on their LI join-page.
There is no
"individual" membership and I am afraid that I cannot afford a $2,500
Corporate membership. I do not see a PayPal "contribute" button either. Oh well.
If LI decides to do either of those things I will make a
contribution. ---
All the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 17 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Oh well, just for fun...
GNUNIX (pronounced gnoo-nix). A contraction of GNU and Linux without the
overhead of having to pay the trademark fee. Everything you have come to expect
from the GNU/Linux operating system without the overhead.
Ok, if that's too close to "Unix" then how about GLINUX (pronounced
glenn-nux). GNU+Linux. Get it?
GNULINUX would be a little hard to roll off the tongue though. Try it.
Now I feel better! :)
Seriously though, if everyone discards the Linux word in their distros and
corporate names, etc, etc, then who's going to fund LMI? That does seem to be a
money-saving out.
-dh
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
First of all, as other posters have pointed out, the Linux
kernel is just a tiny part of a much larger collection of
code. Linus has nothing to do with 99% of the code that
goes into an average Linux distribution.
So it looks to me like it's already diluted, and has
passed into common generic use, like Kleenex.
I also find it odd that Linus himself has nothing to say
on the subject- there sure are lots of folks purporting to
speak for him.
I think this is a bunch of legalistic opportunistic hooey.
It's silly to worry about the Wrong People misusing the
Linux name, that's a self-correcting problem. If
microshaft or fiaSCO release some bogus product and call
it Linux, it will be laughed off the planet in about 4
nanoseconds.
How about we get back to "free as in freedom," and let
things sort themselves out. This does nothing but cut the
hand that wields it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 06:21 AM EDT |
There has been much thoughtful discussion here, but I remain convinced that a
smaller 'non-profit' license fee would better serve all involved.
At $200 for non-profit use (same as sub-100K profit use), distro makers will
likely seek a 'foo-nix' style name for their project rather than hand over the
fee. (I am not advocating that distro makers do so; that is simply my
expectation.)
Were the non-profit fee only $20, I find it more likely Joe Distro Maker would
happily pay the fee for the privilege of adding 'Linux®' to their distro name.
The more use of the trademark, the more familiar and comfortable Joe Public will
be with this 'loo-nicks' thing he/she keeps hearing about.
Perhaps the numbers would balance out in the long term -- one $200 license and 9
preferring to rename versus all ten buying a $20 license. But it sure would
remove the current ill-will (deserved or not).
Despite the above, who knew that it has cost Maddog so much to safeguard the
trademark. Talks about taking one for the team. I hope, if nothing else, the
spreading knowledge of his sacrifice is some small compensation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
First IANAL - just a developer. But it does seem to me that there might have
been a better way to handle this.
The FSF has the means of enforcing proper trademark usage as was pointed out in
another post, and seems to have not raised the ire of the open source community
with it's legal actions. So far I haven't received any letters requiring me to
send money to the FSF because I released a GPL'd application on Sourceforge that
used GTK in it's making. The GIMP group hasn't either.
Add in the fact that LMI states that they are non-profit, so there is no
specific reason for their existince except to enforce the Linux trademark. I.E.
no profit motive for Linus. Anyone could have handled it for him.
Wouldn't it have been a much better solution to Linus to arrange for the FSF to
handle the trademark of Linux instead of Linus taking it on his own to assign it
to LMI? The FSF seems to be working rather well without developers being
required to license the GNU trademark, or pay royalties on products made with
GNU tools.
So far LMI has caused a tremendous polarization in the community as witnessed by
the posts here and on Slashdot. Some have praised LMI (including PJ) and others
have called them the evil overlords. I dont like to see this, especially when
we open source developers are being attacked by the likes of SCO and Microsoft.
We need to stay unified and focused.
IMHO the Linux trademark has already been diluted to the point it is much like
calling a tissue "Kleenex" or making a "Xerox copy". And we
remember just how successful Xerox Corp. was in trying to undo the trademark
dilution with their run of TV commercials. We still call a generic photocopier
a "Xerox machine" to this day. Methinks the cat is already out of the
bag and LMI isn't going to undo it.
We refer to a GNU/Linux distro as "Linux", we have "Linux"
boxes, and we are always chewing up bandwidth downloading the latest
distribution of "Linux". My router runs "Linux", my laptop
runs "Linux", and I'm writing this on my "Linux" machine.
I'm working on a product using "Linux" as it's OS here at work. No
matter that each device is radically different in use and type, and each OS has
different roots, we refer to them all as running "Linux" in the most
generic way even though the Linux kernel is a small portion of each system. The
word "Linux" has pretty much invaded the English language for good.
Sorry LMI, too late. Linux, Linux, Linux everywhere!
I noticed that many non-profit very popular distros have quietly selected names
that do not contain "Linux", for instance Ubuntu and Knoppix. However
pint-sized operations such as DSL (Damn Small Linux), and Pee-Wee Linux will
either have to pony up the license fee, change their name, or go extinct. The
latter would be tragic.
-dh
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KAKMAN on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
here is link to this weeks's I, Cringlely
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050818.html
Discusses Orrin Hatch's weasel attempt at patent reform in favor of large
pocketed corporations, oh, I don't know, let's say, SATAN, I mean Microsoft.
BTW, Google has introduced a new tool for its Blogger website, Blogger for Word
http://buzz.blogger.com/bloggerforword.html
Have already put in a request for Blogger for OpenOffice.org Write. Perhaps if
enough people made same simple request here
http://help.blogger.com/?page=wishlist
(just cut and paste Blogger for OpenOffice.org Write to "suggest a new
feature" space),
it could happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
If this has been addressed in another posting, then I apologize for being
redundant.
IANAL, but based upon my non-legal profession understanding of the GPL I am
pretty sure this is kosher. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ok, when Xfree went to their version 1.1 license, which many in the open source
community did not like, Xorg was formed which forked the X-windows source tree.
This is perfectly legal with open source as long as the original copyrights,
attributions, and licenses are respected.
If you find what Linus, LMI, et. al. is doing with the "Linux(r)" name
really goes against the grain of your thinking, simply get a group together,
pick a snapshot of the source tree, add any patches you like, and redistribute
calling it "SOMETHING_OS based from the Linux sources". Apparently if
you dont call the forked kernel "Linux", then you are not under
trademark restrictions.
Set it up on Sourceforge or the like, have some sharp maintainers keep track of
if and do some really strigent quality control.
I would caution to make sure that everything be done with respect to Linus and
the GPL. You probably would want to consult with someone who is experienced and
knowledgable in open source licensing and the GPL.
If enough people like it, use it, and recommend it, then consider it a job well
done. there is nothing that says it has to be GNU/Linux, it can be GNU/[insert
your os name here]. It could even eclipse the original, such as Xorg over
Xfree.
After all, that's what it is all about. Just take good code and make it better.
Would this help?
-dh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: keithmo on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
I'm curious as to LMI's definition of "a Linux - based product or
service...using a trademark that includes the element 'Linux'".
A
quick search on SourceForge reveals a number of freely-available GPL'd projects
that incorporate the word "Linux" in the project name. A few examples (randomly
chosen from the first page of search results) include:
Is the license required for these GPL'd projects that
include Linux in their names?
What about CCL-licensed literary works? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
In most cases people are only using the word Linux as a qualifier, showing that
*their* products or services makes use of Linux.
Would it be preferable if no acknowledgement were given?
Perhaps just saying "Powered by FOSS" will start to be used instead.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 19 2005 @ 09:34 PM EDT |
The Board of EFA has noted with concern the criticism of EFA Board member
Jeremy Malcolm for representing the Church of Scientology in a conflict with
Steve Zadarnowski's web site and posts to Usenet. In many respects the Board
shares those concerns, given that the Church has instructed Jeremy to employ
legal process to stifle Steve's criticisms and comments on the Church.
While supporting the right of anyone to legal advice and representation, EFA
is of the view that the use of defamation law to stifle free expression and
debate is to be condemned in the strongest terms. EFA is ready, willing and
able to support any person who has their rights to free speech threatened by
the legal process.
To respond to concerns that the presence of Jeremy Malcolm on EFA's Board
compromises EFA's committed stand for freedom of expression, Jeremy has
voluntarily stood down from the Board until further notice. On behalf of the
Board, I thank him for this action. While the Board acknowledges that a
lawyer's own views are not to be assumed to be those of any individual client,
the perception of divided loyalties would be damaging to the reputation of
EFA and may dissuade people from seeking EFA help in a legal conflict,
especially concerning the Church of Scientology. Jeremy has entirely absented
himself from EFA meetings and online discussions for the time being so as to
remove any possibility of conflict of interest.
Jeremy has not resigned from the Board of EFA. The Board, including Jeremy,
are in discussion as to the circumstances under which he will continue his
unpaid and committed work for EFA in its civil liberties charter.
I would like to emphasize that throughout the present dispute, Steve has
been in regular contact with myself and all information has been dealt with on
a confidential basis. Anyone who is cautious about contacting an organisation
rather than an individual over a litigious issue is welcome to contact myself as
EFA Chair or Irene Graham as EFA Executive Director.
As to the threat by the Church of Scientology against Steve's site and Usenet
posts, on behalf of EFA I deplore the heavy-handed use of the legal process
to stifle criticism of the Church and note that the site has been mirrored
elsewhere. Defamation law, an uncertain and expensive legal process, is ill-
used in relation to the Internet. The 1999 amendments to the Broadcasting
Services Act, strongly criticised by EFA for its censorship provisions,
nonetheless created section 91 which protects ISPs from liability as publisher
in circumstances not yet tested in Court. EFA supports the establishment,
through a test case, of the proposition that threatening the ISP as a tactic to
stifle online expression is unlawful in Australia and such conduct may, in
turn, give a right to a counter-suit.
In any event, Steve's web site and Usenet posts represent opinion and social
commentary that deserves the highest standards of protection as free speech.
EFA is committed to assisting persons in his situation and to offer such
support as may be of help, including legal assistance.
Both myself and the Board will be pleased to answer any concerns that may
linger regarding this issue, and the furore over this issue has prompted EFA
to consider and document its procedures for ensuring that there are
transparent and visible processes for avoidance of even the appearance of
conflict of interest.
On behalf of the Board,
Kimberley Heitman, Chair
Electronic Frontiers Australia
www.efa.org.au[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: goofyknite on Sunday, August 21 2005 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
Everybody can sympathize on that. But LMI should make trademark rules less
restrictive and more easyer to understand.
Microsoft's Trademarks rules and guidlines are easy to understand. I at least I
know I can use Microsoft text trademarks in in a website for FREE by following
its rules
(www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/trademarks/).
With LMI, I know a tradmark sublicense is required for use of the word 'Linux'
in a distro name or in a bussiness name.
But, I don't know I could use the word 'linux' in a web page.
For exmaple, This texts will say this in web page 'ABC Computer Tech also
provies support for Linux OS... .'
Is sublicense is required when 'Linux' use in the above example?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 22 2005 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
No offense to any of the legal gurus here, but I fear that we may have all
become a little over-zealous about protecting something that works best
unprotected.
I cannot go out and sell you a Steel Car made entirely of aluminium. The reason
I can't do this is because it is false advertising, the car contains no steel.
Thus, the (constant) comparison to words like "Open" are simply not
valid, "Linux" is not a common english word with some fuzzy feel good
emotions attached to it, it is the name of an operating system kernel.
The only valid comparison that has been produced so far is "kleenex",
a situation where people use the word kleenex to refer to any tissues, not just
to kleenex tissues. However this came about as a result of a concerted
marketting effort by Kleenex themselves and the no-name-brand market attempting
to cash in on it. Creating a no-name kernel would be a lot of work for a start,
and then calling it Linux would invoke false advertising, Microsoft can't just
pump out their new Windows Linux distro without a Linux kernel in it, even if it
isn't trademarked.
The only valid threat is an attempt to create a fork of the Linux kernel and
call it Linux. And quite frankly, I *want* people to be able to do that. The
good outweighs the bad.
It is important that nobody except Linus have the rights to the Linux trademark,
however it is not important that Linus have rights to the Linux trademark.
It is vitally important that there be absolutely no legal fear about developing
software to operate under the Linux kernel, or on Linux-based distributions.
Chilling effects are damaging to the ability of the community to work, and any
legal threat no matter how small (even $1) is too large for a 14 year old who
writes a "Linux screen saver".
As far as I am concerned, this is entirely commercially motivated, not from
Linus's side but from the point of view of "protecting" things and
"preventing" people from profiting by using a "good name".
They can name it whatever the hell they like, it doesn't stop me from
identifying whether it contains what I want, nor does it prevent community
actions from identifying entities that comply with whatever particular rules
they see fit.
I don't intend to insult those people who have spent money and worked hard to
support the trademark initiative, I have no qualms about their motivations, I
simply consider them to be suffering from a commercial tunnel vision and an
over-exaggerated sense of threat.
The entire thing about Linux and Open Source (and I'm not being too much of a
hippy) is that money does not come first. It can join the party, sure, it's
useful and we need to eat, but as soon as it gets in the way it needs to take
back seat to enabling the people who want to help make it better for everyone.
Let the trademarks lapse, let Linux the word be Free as in speech, not fairly
cheap as in beer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 22 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
Copy of email send to the kernal
mailing lists.
Housekeeping as time has moved on. I think he
explains it in a manner that should be understood by the random slashdot/Groklaw
poster.
CrazyEnginner
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raya on Tuesday, August 23 2005 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
"If you are making between $200,000 and a cool million using the name Linux,
do you find it unreasonable that you pay a $1,000"
For the first
time I find fault with PJs writing.
That isn't at all what the fee
schedule states.
It clearly refers to _gross_ revenue, and _projected_
at that.
You might be making nothing, or losing money
hand over fist, but you would still be liable for $5k if you even
projected that you would turn over $1M. That is an IT company of
five or six people (here in the uk on average) - hardly a large enterprise, and
that hits the top price band.
"As you can note, you don't pay anything
like that if you are a nonprofit."
Surely, the license is written under
US law where non-profit means, I believe, something particular ? An equivalent
status may not even exist as an option for many people around the world -
whether they are trying to make a profit or not.
If LMI had
wanted to base the fees on the money you make of Linux they could have done so,
but they didn't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mikeprotts on Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
My two penn'orth under UK law
IANAL etc.
As Linux (TM) has been available with no fee payable if distributing Linux for
many years, this has become accepted practice, and would therefore be considered
as legitimate for existing distributions.
However, anyone starting now would have to work by the current rules and would
either have to have Linux (TM) NOT in the name, or pay.
Cheers
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
