Slashdot Mirror

Who owns the Linux trademark? The Linux Foundation? Can this company call this product 'WLinux' if it does not run the Linux kernel?

Linus owns it, linuxmark.org enforces it for him: https://www.linuxmark.org/

This is actually GNU on Windows, not Linux.

Can they legally call it "WLinux" when there is no Linux kernel in it?

Definitely looks weird. I always write it in all-lowercase. But apparently the trademark is either all-caps ("LINUX®") or the standard capitalized form ("Linux®")

Someone should remind them to register "linux®" (all lowercase), before Darl tries to. A capital first letter just doesn't look right.

As for sports bars, they're a business encouraging a large number of willing viewers to watch someone else's advertising revenue supported content. Of course they should be compensated.

There. Fixed that for ya.

No, you didn't. Trademark (and any economic right) is not contingent upon what you judge will be beneficial for the holder of the trademark even if your judgment is the best possible one given the empirical evidence. So the argument "but it's good for them", no matter how true, is simply inapt -- it is not the right criterion on which to judge the legality of the action.

For instance, the term "Linux" is trademarked to the Linux foundation, meaning I cannot use it commercially to designate my product unless that foundation appropriately sub-licenses it (see, e.g. http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php). I cannot call my product WrathLinux and sell it for a profit without a license, irrespective of any arguments, true or otherwise, about whether the distribution of this product is "good" for Linux or not. The same goes for copyrights. I may not violate the GPL in redistributing WrathLinux irrespective of arguments that doing so is beneficial for Linux.

Instead, I must convince the proper rights holder that what I'm doing really is to their benefit, in which case that can grant me a license (in the case of the GPL this is practically impossible but dual-licensing of some software is seen). That is, the rights holder has the final say about whether that behavior is actually beneficial.

In the Super Bowl case, it's evident the NFL does not consider this beneficial. Whether or not that is wise, that is properly their decision to make. Arguments that they are deciding poorly are not equivalent to arguments that they do not have the right to make the decision.

But unfortunately for you, it is: http://www.linuxmark.org/

Linux is trademarked.

Linux Mark Institute, exclusive licensor of the Linux trademark on behalf of its owner, Linus Torvalds.

http://www.linuxmark.org/

They most likely had already a free sub-license for the trademark: http://www.linuxmark.org/

Revoking a nominally perpetual license, in order to take over someone's website, would be rather questionable...

Technically, Linux is a brand.

Also technically, the "operating system" is the program which interfaces with the hardware and runs all the other programs. Which means that the Linux kernel is the only part of a given distribution that can claim to be the operating system.

But the ad campaign isn't really interested in the technical side of things. Linux is a common shorthand for all the various distributions, window managers, and open source applications that are commonly included in distros. Yes, once you've decided to "try Linux," you still have choices to make, and they're more complex than choosing between Vista Home and Vista Ultimate, or deciding whether to upgrade from Jaguar to Leopard. But "Linux is a free, highly customizable operating system that will run on your current computer" is good enough for 90% of the population.

As far as branding goes, the "Linux brand" is far more valuable than whatever flavor-of-the-year is currently best for new users. If by this time next year, somebody trots out "ClickAndDrool Linux" that manages to be absolutely perfect for everybody, or if it is revealed that Ubuntu is actually Windows Vista with a few custom themes, the marketing pitch can stay the same.

> I would rather think it would be something like trying to patent a FOSS name like "Linux" as a "trademark" and not a patent.

Errrr ... the name "Linux" is a trademark. The trademark belongs to an individual called Linux Torvalds.

http://www.linuxmark.org/

If you were to fork the codebase, change it without going through kernel.org , and you then decided to distribute it, then according to copyright law you can only do so with permissions given to you by the copyright holders.

The copyright holders have set out their terms for granting such permission in a license document called GPL v2. The terms for what you were trying to do include a condition such that when you redistribute it you must offer the source code to anyone who asks you for it.

Trademark law says that you may not call your product "Linux" without Linus' permission. You may call it something else entirely and distribute it without Linus' permission, but if you want to call it Linux then you must have Linus' permission.

What a stupid question. Its up to the trademark holder how they protect their trademark. As it happens you do need to apply and agree to terms to sub licence the Linux trademark.

This is not to say that the GPL doesn't apply, but when it comes to the actual product called "the Linux kernel", that baby is Linus and no one else's.

And this is a good thing. Having worked on an OSS project that was hijacked by a nutjob, I can say that it is important to be able to clearly identify the party or parties making final decisions. In our project, it meant the vast majority of the developers posted a letter stating our opposition to the nutjob's positions, and then we started a new project with a new name.

Linus speaks for the product known as the Linux kernel because he owns the rights to that trademarked name. He deserves the respect and attention he gets from the public at large.

I am the registered owner of an internet domain which includes the term "Linux." Do I need a sublicense?

The Linux Sublicense Agreement applies only to trademarks, but we recognize that internet domains are sometimes used as trademarks. If you are using your domain name as a trademark, then you will need a sublicense from LMI. For help determining whether your domain is a trademark, see the questions and answers at the top of this FAQ page.

I am the registered owner of an internet domain which includes the term "Linux." Do I need a sublicense?

The Linux Sublicense Agreement applies only to trademarks, but we recognize that internet domains are sometimes used as trademarks. If you are using your domain name as a trademark, then you will need a sublicense from LMI. For help determining whether your domain is a trademark, see the questions and answers at the top of this FAQ page.

I am the registered owner of an internet domain which includes the term "Linux." Do I need a sublicense?

The Linux Sublicense Agreement applies only to trademarks, but we recognize that internet domains are sometimes used as trademarks. If you are using your domain name as a trademark, then you will need a sublicense from LMI. For help determining whether your domain is a trademark, see the questions and answers at the top of this FAQ page.

I got confused by copyright and trademark.

But it looks like the little ® needs to be in there:

Linux Mark

I don't remember seeing that in TFA.

Personally, I see Debian's position as more proper within the realm of the F/OSS community. If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me. Especially, if your source contains all of the trademark data in the code, and altering the content requires a great deal of work.

I'm pretty sure that "Linux" is a trademarked. See the Linux Trademark Institute. IANAL, so I wasn't exactly sure what was going on there, but it looks like you have to get a license to use "the mark" (man, that's creepy). It would appear that there are also some legal considerations when using images of Tux, the Linux penguin. Once again, I didn't really have the knowledge required to understand the details.

Just FYI...

I believe it has to do with the recent trademarking of linux, see the linuxmark institute

Probably because of content provided at http://www.linuxmark.org/. I'm not 100% sure if that includes GNU/Linux as well, but in terms of the term Linux there is this on that same site: The registered trademark Linux® is used pursuant to a license from Linus Torvalds, owner of the mark in the U.S. and other countries.

Just one example - they threatened CentOS with legal action
legal action based on TRADEMARK infringement. TRADEMARK law is very different than copyright law in the US. TRADEMARK law DEMANDS that a TRADEMARK holder actively defend the mark or the mark can lose its protected status and anyone..even competitors could then use that trademark to cause confusion in the marketplace.

Even the name "linux" has a TRADEMARK associated with it..and there is an organization called LMI that seeks to protect the linux TRADEMARK from being used inappropriately. http://www.linuxmark.org/

Its critical to understand the difference between TRADEMARKS and COPYRIGHT. LMI's webpages do a reasonable job trying to explain why TRADEMARK enforcement even for the term "linux" is important. Please make an effort to read and understand those pages. Its just as appropriate for a for-profit business to protect its marks as it is for a non-profit organization like LMI. If Red Hat doesn't want to offer a license to its competitors for use of the marks..and centos is a competitor...thats perfectly reasonable.

Does Linux need Trademark? Yes.

Simply put the LINUS had no choice but to fight to get the trademark from some nefarious little fscker trying to extort money from OSS projects.Linky http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.html#Are_you_doing_th is_because_you_want

Debian neeeds not worry until the same happens with the same result. The problem in deciding to TM is that you have to therafter actively defend your trademark ( Like the LMI does now )or you lose it.(Carries with it some bad press, Debian does not need). All the Distributions need to do more to make sure the trademark is attributed in all relevant places to Linus though.

I wonder why the demand in monetary payment

Then why not find out? Google it:

Linus Clarifies the Linux Trademark

Linus went on to underscore the fact that policing trademarks is not a method of making money, quite the opposite due to Lawyer fees, "not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has so far historically always lost money on it."

The Linux Mark Institute ... is not designed to generate profits for anyone.

The best thing all-round would be a rework of the system, to something like this: Have a list of copyrighted and trademarked products, like

These are all of the figuroos that (x) produce (endorsed by us). If you want to produce a competing figuroo, do so, but you will have to pay $xxx.xxx.

These are all of the plushies that (x) produce (endorsed by us). If you want to produce competing plush toys, (like the Linux penguin etc), you will need to pay $xxx.xxx

Otherwise, it really is just a slippery slope and up to lawyerly interpretation - they will end up doing whatever they want and exacting vast tribute.

The best thing all-round would be a rework of the system, to something like this: Have a list of copyrighted and trademarked products, like

These are all of the figuroos that (x) produce (endorsed by us). If you want to produce a competing figuroo, do so, but you will have to pay $xxx.xxx.

These are all of the plushies that (x) produce (endorsed by us). If you want to produce competing plush toys, (like the Linux penguin etc), you will need to pay $xxx.xxx

Otherwise, it really is just a slippery slope and up to lawyerly interpretation - they will end up doing whatever they want and exacting vast tribute.

They forgot the attribution as well:

Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

http://www.linuxmark.org/attribution.html

It would have to be GNU/Linux® in order to comply with the trademark requirements.

It says so quite clearly here:
http://www.linuxmark.org/attribution.html

And page or post mentioning it should have the following attribution somewhere:

"Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries."

Obviously anyone using the word Linux without the ® as specified by the web page is using it incorrectly.

If you think that Linus Torvalds is a reasonable person, and won't ask for anything unreasonable, then what about his heirs? What if Microsoft decides to buy the Linux trademark from him for a billion dollars? (He's a sane individual and would take the money.)

BINGO! The LMI Sublicense Agreement is written in such a way that it gives total control over ALL licensed distributions, businesses, services, and organizations to the owner of the trademark. All in one neat little package that would easily be worth $1 billion to a company like Microsoft, or IBM, or Sun. In fact, a bidding war between those three companies alone could bring a much higher price.

Even if Linus won't sell, nobody lives forever, and eventually his heirs will control the name. Or he may get legally outmanuevered by others who like the idea of becoming billionaires. It wouldn't be the first time in history that trusted associates turned against someone.

People need to read this agreement and think rationally about what's in it, and the potential for abuse that it contains, instead of just going ba-aah whenever they hear "Linus says."

The only reason he's jumping on Linux is because it provides an easy target for cheap-shot advertisement.

Stallman's not jumping on Linux, and Stallman isn't sending letters out of the blue to users telling them to license the word/entity/trademark/whatever GNU, or setting a fee scale for it. The Linux Mark Institute is doing that.

The real reason Linux® is being "protected" and not given to the public domain as a generic trademark is not to prevent "tarnishing of the Linux name," it's being done because the larger commercial vendors and users want the name trademarked for their protection.

With all the legal heavy-lifting the large organizations like IBM, Red Hat, and AutoZone are doing against the SCOboys, I can see why they want "Linux" to become "Linux®", but in reality, the term "Linux" is already generic (like "Pizza",) and should be declared such. So, instead of jumping on Stallman and saying "He should just require (as others do) that it mention somewhere in the materials that it uses GNU software", perhaps Linus should release "Linux®" to the public domain, where it would be protected by a "social license" instead of a very restrictive legal one.

(...) WHEREAS SUBLICENSEE desires to acquire the right from LMI to use the Linux trademark in connection with the AUTHORIZED GOODS/SERVICES (as defined herein) bearing the Linux mark to the extent SUBLICENSEE's use of the Linux trademark is not considered "fair use." (...)
1. DEFINITIONS
(...)
  "AUTHORIZED GOODS/SERVICES" means Linux-based goods/services. Linux-based goods are computer systems and software using the Linux kernel either directly from www.kernel.org or with modifications, or packages bundling the Linux kernel with tools, utilities, hardware, or layered software. Linux-based services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance Linux-based goods. (...)

5. TERM AND TERMINATION
(...)
B. If SUBLICENSEE is in material breach of one or more of its obligations under this Agreement, LMI may, upon its election and in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time terminate this Agreement and all the rights granted hereunder (...)

• The issue at hand is not about software, but about trademarks. Trademarks are about advertising, therefore I find your statement nonsensical
  
• The BSD clause was deemed unsustainable because it became clear that F/OSS was going to be constructed from a great number of components of different copyright holders. This does not hold true in the same way for trademarks.
  
• The license agreement states,

  C. Recognizing that there may be space limitations, any reasonable facsimile of the language shown in paragraph B of this Section may be used as a substitute where made necessary by such space limitations. In case of doubt as to the proper shortened form, exemplars should be submitted to LMI for approval.

  
  The language in question is,

  The registered trademark Linux® is used pursuant to a sublicense from the Linux Mark Institute, the exclusive LICENSEE of Linus Torvalds, owner of the mark in the U.S. and other countries.

  I guess this is not too much on a software package, and shortened forms can be negotiated. I guess you and LMI will find an agreement on the proper form for your Linux-powered nanorobots that are delivered without any packaging, advertisment or any other display

Informative ? more like misleading.

The LMI website specifically states that you need to license whether you register trademark or not.

link

After several days of reading about this subject and totally wrong commenting on it myself, here the groklaw link:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989

This article links to
http://www.linuxmark.org/

This explains everything, so a lot of projects should pay, but at this moment they are just trying to make up for the cost of protecting the trademark by going after big players (>1mln US$).

I only disagree with one thing: A trademark does not garantee quality at the moment of rewarding the trademark. You only know that the product sucked when the trademark is revoked because of bad quality.

Read this.

For one, LUGs are probably not going to have to pay up. I can't see how they are offering a "product or service" to the public. They generally aren't even registered as companies. You're either in the group, or not. They're not selling something.

For second, even if they did; the license fee could be as low $200 a year. I registered my own company earlier this year and at that time, the contact at LMI I had claimed that they will even work with sublicensees on that price. If everyone in the group can't cough up a combined total of $200 over twelve months to help defend the thing the group is all about in the first place... get another hobby.

They're not trying to "rip off" anyone. LMI is registered as a non-profit organization. They're just looking to build up a war chest to defend Linux with if they have to. The more Linux is used in the business world, the more important this becomes. It's that simple.

This is about using the word "Linux" the name of the company or name of the product. If you have a company called "The Computer Guys", and say that "yes, we support Linux", you are NOT required to pay a thing. But if you called your company "The Linux-guys" you would have to pay.

Really, read about it yourself: . From the website:

"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 if your trademark (name of the company or product) containss the word "Linux", you have to pay. If it doesn't, and you merely tell everyone that "this product is based on Linux" (for example), you do not have to pay, since the word "linux" is not in the name of the product.

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.

Set Microsoft Trademarks Apart From Other Words or Nouns They Modify

The common way to do this is to capitalize the product name and use the appropriate trademark symbol and appropriate descriptor. You may also underline, italicize, or bold the name. Examples:

Correct: After you install the Windows® operating system...

Incorrect: After installing Windows programs you can...
Use Trademark Notices

Include an attribution of Microsoft's ownership of the trademark(s) within the credit notice section of your documentation or advertisement. The format to follow is:

"Microsoft, Encarta, MSN, and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries."

Hi,

I was a little upset answering the above post, so for those of you who are interested, the URL is http://linuxmark.org/

Thanks,

maddog

SlashDot, Check.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19/ 1154231

LinuxMark, Check.
http://www.linuxmark.org/what_if.html

Hmm, something is missing. LINUS' words?, no, LKML, nope, Blog Entry, nada, maybe OSDL, Hmmm
http://osdl.org/about_osdl/legal/lldf

Why doesn't this cover the Trademark Maintenance Fees? Do they (OSDL) pay Trademark licenses?

Help me Linus, We need you to tell us why "you" don't pay your lawyers and why we should.

This whole thing is unfortunate FUD-food. I'm even having a hard time deciding on good vs evil on this one. Is the name worth 200 bucks to me, hmmm. The Distro OS is, The kernel only, I dunno man. Now every OS vendor has to pay or make up a new name. I think I'll call mine NewYorknix there, now I'm in the clear.

Seriously, We need you guidance Mr. T.

http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html If your total projected annual gross revenue over US $1 million, you probably can pay the $5000.

Just to follow up on my other comment, the Linux Mark Institute says, quite clearly, that talking about Linux, as you seem to be implying is forbidden, is absolutely fine:

If you are a journalist interested in writing articles that include the term "Linux," you do not need a sublicense.

The problem you have is that you are marketing a service that actually contains Linux in the name:

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.

If they were stopping you from doing the first thing, then I agree, that would be outrageous. But they aren't. They are stopping you from doing the second thing, which is much more reasonable. You can carry on producing your TV programmes, you just can't use a name containing "Linux" for it.

The rate is on a sliding scale.
Check the LMI Fees Page to see where you fit. Based on your description, I'd say you're either non-profit or for profit tier 1, which would be $200.

The Groklaw article others have referenced mentions it, too.

Actually the fees are detailed here

Check here

Not quite. Can you take the Open Solaris source code and release "Geek Solaris 4.2"? Nope. Sun would kill you over the Solaris trademark. Yet anyone can take Linux and make "Geek Linux 4.2 (The best Linux yet!)".

Hmm. Check this and then this out.

Doesn't Linus own the 'Linux' trademark already?

Indeed, his fees are about the same. Indeed, it turns out that Jeremy Malcolm is acting on Linus' behalf. There is even a web site which explains the situation.

So will I get sued for using vanilla sources and not removing the Linux mark?

The whole point of this action is just to secure the trademark in Australia so that it can't be exploited or used inappropriately. It's not to stop someone downloading and compiling the Linux kernel!

More information is available at the LMI site: http://www.linuxmark.org/

http://www.linuxmark.org/what_if.html

If you have a sublicensed trademark and discover that someone else is using the same or a confusingly similar mark, please contact the other party and their trademark attorneys, not us

...

we will not get involved in any dispute between licensees.

"we will not get involved" != "defending it" ...

The reason is that unscrupulous operators have been abusing the Linux trademark, and so Linux Australia decided to persue securing it on behalf of Linus. (aka doing the right thing)

The T's and C's (i.e. charging for use of the trademark Linux in Australia) are no different from those identified in the Linus-approved Linux Mark Institute. But note, that Jeremy Malcolm's notice is NOT asking for money, just saying that in the future you may be asked to licence the trademark if you sell a product that is levereging the Linux trademark. This is a key point in trademark law - to secure the trademark in the first place to stop some companies from doing the wrong thing.

See Jon Oxer's blog post on the topic (he's Linux Australia's president).

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.
Why are we necessary?
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.

The counsel that Linux Australia instructed, a jovial fellow (who also is a right proper geek) named Jeremy Malcolm, has been toiling away at this for some time now. He recently resolved some outstanding confusion (mostly just crossed wires between all the unpaid volunteers involved on various sides of whichever your favourite ocean is), and is putting together the final pieces of the puzzle that will resolve the issue properly. Part of that was a sending a letter to various people around the country who might happen to be using Linux professionally, asking them to indicate their knowledge of the international trademark and their support of it.

THANK YOU... I was hoping someone was going to post that soon.

An FAQ for the /. hordes...

• Why are you sending letters of demand?
  We're not... the letter (and the email body which contained the first paragraph) specifically state "This is not a letter of demand, but rather a request for your assistance..."
• $5000? WTF?
  Don't look at us, that's the pricing set by the Linux Mark Institute (LMI) and they say that most uses are no more than $500. What's more, the license only covers direct uses of the name (like in a business name) not descriptive uses like "We sell Linux CDs". In any event, that's all down the road, and we're not likely to be the ones pursuing it anyway (that's LMI's job). Don't get your panties in a knot.
• Isn't "Linux" already a registered trademark elsewhere? Doesn't it cover Australia by default?
  No, it doesn't. That's what we're trying to do, get it registered for Linus here.
• Do you really represent Linus/LMI/foo?
  Yes, really. Feel free to check with Linux Australia Inc, LMI, whoever. I'm not sure if Linus personally knows of our efforts, but Jon "maddog" Hall (President of OSDL I believe) certainly does.
• It still smells bogus.
  Andrew Cowie (one of the Linux Australia board members) has written an excellent summary in his blog. Well worth the read.

And in case you think I'm talking out of my rear, I work for Jeremy (on the IT side, IANAL) and was the one who "physically" sent out the 90 emails.

The law is the same in the USA, and you have to pay higher fees over there. http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html
The requirement for payment to use the Linux trademark section of this story isn't an Australian issue, it's the freaky lawyer who sent out the letters of demand that make this story interesting. He's not all bad though, he's had some success fighting spammers http://zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/Perth_man_wi ns_T3_spam_case/0,39023166,20269057,00.htm, and it looks like this current venture is intended to protect the Linux trademark rather than being a scam. I'd say there's a fair chance the bulk of the fees collected in Australia will go to the US based parent organisation anyway.

GPL is a License. Linux is a Trademark.