Linus Explains Linux Trademark Issues

Normally I avoid posting direct comments from mailing lists here, but since Linus posted this on Kernel-dev and says that he hopes Slashdot picks it up, I think that's permission. This message addresses the recent rumors that have been floating around about Linus' lawyers going after domain squatters abusing the Linux Trademark. It's an interesting issue, and one that I'm sure will divide you guys: we've always hated it when domain names are taken from people by others, but this is our beloved Linux Trademark.

The following was written by Linus Torvalds and posted to kernel-dev

I've been getting tons of email about the trademark thing due to the
action of stopping the auctioning off of linux-related names, so instead
of just answering individually (which was how I started out), I'll just
send out a more generic email. And hope that slashdot etc pick it up so
that enough people will be reassured or at least understand the issues.

And hey, you may not end up agreeing with me, but with the transmeta
announcement tomorrow I won't have much time to argue about it until next
week ;)

Basically, the rules are fairly simple, and there really are just a few
simple basic issues involved:

- I (and obviously a lot of other people) do not want to have "Linux" as
a name associated with unacceptable (or borderline) behaviour, and it's
important that "Linux" doesn't get a name of being associated with
scams, cybersquatting, etc etc. I'd personally hate that, for rather
obvious reasons. I _like_ being proud of Linux, and what has been
achieved. I'd rather not have to apologize for it..

- Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the
trademark (unlike, for example, copyright law, where the copyright
owner is the copyright owner, always is, and always will be unless he
willingly relinquishes ownership, and even THEN he ends up having
rights).

This is nasty, because it means, for example, that a trademark owner
has to be shown as caring about even small infringements, because
otherwise the really bad guys can use as their defense that "hey, we
may have misused it, but look at those other cases that they didn't go
after, they obviously don't care.."

- Even with things that aren't scams or something like that, VALID uses
of "Linux" may be bad if they mean that other valid uses of "Linux" are
blocked.

Those are the kind of ground rules, I think everybody can pretty much
agree with them..

What the above leads to is

- I'm required to ask people to acknowledge the trademark. When you use
the term "Linux" in official marketing literature etc, you should
acknowledge it as a trademark owned by me. Not because I love seeing my
name in print, but simply because of the "policing" issue (#2) above.

(And no, that does NOT mean that you have to add that to normal,
everyday use of the term. Common sense rules the day, think of the
situations where you see the silly "xxxx is a trademark of yyyy", and
realize that yyyy may not really care except the legal issues force
them to ;)

- _Intent_ matters. It matters a lot.

If your intent is to use the word "linux" as part of a real Linux
project, that doesn't mean that you automatically absolutely have to
get permission from me. That's the LAST thing I want. I want "Linux" to
be as free as possible as a term, and the real reason for having a
trademark in the first place was to _protect_ it rather than use it as
some kind of legalistic enforcement thing.

But, for example, if your intent is to register "mylinux.com" (made up
example, I don't know if it is registered or not) only in the hopes of
selling the domain name for mucho dinero later, then that kind of
intent is not something I (or anybody else, I think) would find really
acceptable, because now the use of "linux" in this case has really been
a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it
to get money.

This is where the cybersquatting laws come in, for example, allowing
the use of a trademark as a way to make sure that such squatting
activity does NOT happen.

- Being "specific" is _good_. Being specific largely avoids the problem
of many people/organizations wanting the same name. We had an example
long ago of somebody who would have wanted to register "Linux Expert"
as a servicemark, yet obviously that is a pretty generic term. Not
good, if it means that there will be confusion about who owns the term.

In contrast (to give some tangible examples), something like "VA Linux"
or "Red Hat Linux" oviously isn't a generic term: it's a very
_targeted_ term for something very specific. Those kinds of names do
not detract from other peoples ability to call _their_ Linux company
something else.

- Finally, you have to judge the "officialdom" and the importance of
the business side of your usage. Not because I or anybody else
really cares all that much, but more because of the "pain factor" if
the name is asked for by somebody else.

Basically, ask yourself the question: "What if somebody else had a
project, and happened to chose the same name for his project as I have
for mine, how strong a protection do I want for MY version of the
project?"

Also, ask yourself: "Would anybody ever have reason to question the
name, and do I need to make provisions for protecting this particular
instance of it" (and note that "anybody" may not be me as the trademark
owner myself, but it may be a competitor who wants to make life
uncomfortable for you)

If you decide that you want some official protection from the mark,
that probably means that you want to own your own version of the
trademark, ie a "service mark" or a "combination mark". There are
obvious cases where such a thing is wanted - you should not be
surprised to hear that various Linux companies own their own
combination marks, or have at the very least gotten that ownership
verbally approved by me pending getting the paperwork done.

So basically, in case the trademark issue comes up, you should make your
own judgement. If you read and understood the above, you know pretty much
what my motivation is - I hate the paperwork, and I think all of this is
frankly a waste of my time, but I need to do it so that in the future I
don't end up being in a position I like even less.

And I'm _not_ out to screw anybody. In order to cover the costs of
paperwork and the costs of just _tracking_ the trademark issues (and to
really make it a legally binding contract in the first place), if you end
up going the whole nine yards and think you need your own trademark
protection, there is a rather nominal fee(*) associated with combination
mark paperwork etc. That money actually goes to the Linux International
trademark fund, so it's not me scalping people if anybody really thought
that that might be the case ;)

I hope people understand what happened, and why it happened, and why it
really hasn't changed anything that we had to assert the trademark issue
publically for the first time this week. And I hope people feel more
comfortable about it.

And finally - I hope that people who decide due to this that what they
really want is trademark protection for their own Linux trademark, that
they could just wait a week or two, or contact maddog at Linux
International rather than me. We're finally getting the shroud of secrecy
lifted from transmeta (hey, we'll have a real web-site and zdtv is
supposed to webcast the announcement tomorrow), and I'd rather worry about
trademarks _next_ week.

Ok?

Linus

(*) "Nominal fee". What an ugly sentence. It's one of those things that
implies that if you have to ask, you can't afford it. In reality, it's
more a thing where both intent and the size of the project will make a
difference - and quite frankly it's also a way to slightly discourage
people who aren't really serious about it in the first place.

Comments

If only he could sensor LinuxOne

[bak6926]

If linus could sue LinuxOne, Theres no way they'd have enough money to have there little bogus IPO

Re:If only he could sensor LinuxOne

[Anonymous Coward]

If only he could sensor LinuxOne

Oops, I think you meant "censor."

Re:If only he could sensor LinuxOne

[shitface]

I guess it is just up to us the public to censor linux one. I am sure that some one will jump on their band wagon though.

Wow- Linus Know /. now

[shitface]

If I remember, last year Linus did one of those internet interviews where the readers ask the questions and some one asked him if he read Slashdot. Linus simply replied that he had never heard of it!!! Moving on up boys.

What are the different marks?

[stx23]

>If you decide that you want some official protection from the mark,
>that probably means that you want to own your own version of the trademark, ie a "service mark" or a >"combination mark".

What are the differences?

Re:What are the different marks?

[JimStoner]

*university flashback*

whoa...

"Valkerie shot the food"

Re:What are the different marks?

[FreeJacker]

From the research I've done, I believe trademarks and servicemarks are essentially the same thing. They just apply to different aspects. If you sell an actual _product_, your company can register for a trademark. If you are providing a _service_, you are eligable for a servicemark.

Incidentally, trade/servicemarks also have a scope. If you have a local business, you are assumed to have a local trademark on it's name. If someone else, in another state has a business with the same name, they can legally trademark it also. If your business subsequently begins selling accross state lines, and then expands and expands, you can now possess a national trademark. There comes a time when your business will move into the scope of the other business who also holds a trademark on the business name. In this case, whoever held the trademark longest usually gets to use it in that scope. So if your business moved into that town, and his local trademark had been in existance longer than your national trademark, then you would be out of luck and have to use a different name in that town.

At least, that's the way it is for Band Names, which is where all of my research was focused. But the gist of the law seemed to apply to everything.

As for the "combo-marks", not sure what those are. I think it's just a new service/trademark, incorporating another service/trademark that the combo-mark owner has liscensed.

Hope that answers your questions!

FreeJacker

Interesting, informative.

[dkh2]

Somebody moderate Linus up a couple of karma points. It's an interesting and informative piece.

That said, is there any chance of the Linux community banding together to retain an attorney or two to watch this type of stuff on our behalf? Set up some sort of tax-deductible, charitable endowment to be administered by (*maybe* Transmeta since Linus works there) that pays the legals and keeps things focused.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

Re:Interesting, informative.

[orcrist]

Somebody moderate Linus up a couple of karma points. It's an interesting and informative piece.

Are you kidding? If Linux ever decided to post personally on Slashdot (comments as opposed to this article posted by proxy) he could probably do nothing but troll all day long, and

1. Have his automatic +1 bonus within a couple of hours, surpassing Signal 11 by the end of the day; and

2. Prevent any other people from getting marked up; and

3. Probably even prevent trolls from getting marked down, with the exception of trolls responding to him ;-)

Chris

Re:Interesting, informative.

[stevew]

I would imagine Linus get's infinite karma by definition!

;-)

Thank You (TM)

[SEWilco]

Thank you (*)

* - "Thank You" is a trade mark of the "Thank You Company"

Re:Thank You (TM)

[angelo]

Thank God(tm*) this is just for a logo, and likewise :

Disclaimer: NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "THANK" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

from the trademark. Trade marks are used in this case to enforce a piece of artwork for commercial purposes. There are also word marks (aka service marks) like THANK YOU FOR TRAVELING WITH PETRO PRIDE. which is covered because of the colours used. in fact there seems to be 64 pages of similar phrases, etc involving this.



* God, apparently is copyright the Vatican (nothing personal)

Re:Thank You (TM)

[AndyElf]

You're welcome!

Re:Thank You (TM)

[CormacJ]

Actually these are Design Marks rather than Trademarks.

You're blocked from using the same words with the same design, but you could use the same works with a different design and/or colours.

Design Marks aren't quite as binding as Trademarks. If you wanted to register www.ThankYou.Com you could be stopped from enforcing it because its a design mark. You could stop someone using your logo though.

Re:Thank You (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear SEWilco,

You mistakenly used the term "Thank you(TM)" in your last post, and then gave reference to the trademark on "Thank You" by the "Thank You Company". Legally, and for clarification purposes, I am obliged to tell you that the "Thank You Company" does not own the trademark on "Thank you(TM)", the "Thank you Company" does. If you use the aforementioned trademark improperly again, or without the express permission of the "Thank you Company", you will receive notice of legal action.

Sincerely, Kenneth StarrH Head council for the Thank you Company.

Thank you(TM) is a trademark of the Thank you Company. Thank You(TM) is a trademark of the Thank You Company. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Re:Thank You (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear SEWilco,

You mistakenly used the term "Thank you(TM)" in your last post, and then gave reference to the trademark on "Thank You" by the "Thank You Company". Legally, and for clarification purposes, I am obliged to tell you that the "Thank You Company" does not own the trademark on "Thank you(TM)", the "Thank you Company" does. If you use the aforementioned trademark improperly again, or without the express permission of the "Thank you Company", you will receive notice of legal action.

Sincerely, Kenneth Starr Head council for the Thank you Company.

Thank you(TM) is a trademark of the Thank you Company. Thank You(TM) is a trademark of the Thank You Company. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Re:Thank You (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... well what about Fsck You?

Re:Thank You (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... well what about Fsck You?

Sorry... couldn't resist

Pretty Much What I Thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much what I thought was going on when I first heard about the dispute. Linus is able, and as copywrite holder, obligated, to protect the Linux name from squatters, and people trying to make a quick buck without being in any way related to the business. This is, at least in my opinion, the correct thing to do.

RJ

LinuxLover.com????

[goader]

I would have to totally agree with Linus on this one. Just think how you would feel if you found a link to a website named something linke linuxlover.com (or something else), only to find that it is yet another porn site just out to get your creditcard? We have already found this to be a problem with whitehouse.com, if Linus did not stop this now it is only a matter of time before someone else did the same.

Re:LinuxLover.com????

[Ravenfeather]

Wow! What a great idea! Penguin pr0n! Or maybe even Petrified Penguin pr0n! Or maybe just penguin softcore, with penguins looking sexy in nothing but little sweaters...The possibilities are endless!

Somehow I just keep thinking of the time in Bloom County when Milo gets a phone bill for thousands of dollars to 1-800-HOT-PUFFIN and Opus is looking decidedly sheepish...

--Ravenfeather, off to register a domain name.

Re:LinuxLover.com????

[M. Piedlourd]

Personally, I'd rather see LinusLover.com. Grrrooowwwrr!

What a bunch of sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying that Linus' behavior is wrong, exactly. But what really makes this any different from any other "cybersquatting" issue discussed here... surely it's not inconsistency on the part of the "Slashdot Community"?!

I didn't think so. Well, I guess we are at war with Eurasia. Come to think of it, we always have been! Yeah, I remember now...

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[Robert Wilde]

I'm not saying that Linus' behavior is wrong, exactly. But what really makes this any different from any other "cybersquatting" issue discussed here.

This action makes me a little uneasy as well. I would be very upset if we see this Linux trademark policing extending to taking domains away from people or blocking "objectionable" domains.

Trademark lawyers have framed the issue such that the public now thinks of domain names and trademarks as analogous. They aren't! If someone registers linuxsucks.com or linuxofficesoftware.com - they have every right to use those domains to diss Linux of discuss the merits of KOffice, Star, etc. I don't want to see Linus start taking domains away from people (even unscrupulous people).

That being said, stopping an auction is different from demanding the domain. Let's give Linus the benifit of the doubt, but be watchful where this leads.

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

"I disapprove with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[aturley]

This is interesting. I must say that I, too, am a little disappointed by this. Trademark law shouldn't apply to domain names, in my opinion. Look at the stupid McDonalds and Veronica things. Blah. Here's what I would like to have seen:

1. Linux ignores the domains that use "Linux" (www.linuxbabes.com with naked women at computers).

2. Some company comes up and abuses the "Linux" in another way (Linux dish soap, for example).

3. Linus calls them to court for misusing the copyrighted word Linux.

4. Lawyers for the dish soap argue the Linus did not go after www.linuxbabes.com, so he cannot go after them either.

5. Linux argues that domain names are not protected by copyright, and therefore he cannot go after www.linuxbabes.com, but he can go after the dish soap.

6. Linus wins with this. A legal precedent is set whereby copyright does not cover domain names.

It might be time consuming, but it would be nice to get the whole copyright/domain name thing resolved.

So now I'll sit back and let everybody tell me why I'm wrong.

andy

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[teraflop user]

The difference is that Linus is protecting the Linux trademark (which he owns) for the use of himself and others for respectable purposes at very little cost.

Cybersquatters by contrast generally do not own or use the trademark (or use it in a desultory way to avoid cybersquatting laws), and only hold the domain name with the intention of selling it to the highest bidder.

So both Linus and cybersqatters hold and sell names.

But they sell for different reasons, to different customers, and for different prices.

Thus it is perfectly consistent to condem one and praise the other.

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[macguges]

If law were software, it occurs to me that our trademark law is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Right here, right now, Linus is saving himself future headaches, and that's fine. But his frustration just highlights the greater problem, which is that our namespaces are becoming too cluttered.

IMHO, the optimal solution would involve the domain (Internet websites, industrial waste handlers) and the observer. This 'one name fits all' approach is breeding lunacy.

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

So now I'll sit back and let everybody tell me why I'm wrong.

Well, you could start by learning the difference between a trademark and a copyright.

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[aturley]

Good point. I appolgize for mixing up copyright and trademark.

andy

Re:What a bunch of sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus protects the Linux trademark for his own use by going after domains matching *linux*.*.

Hasbro protects the Clue trademark for their own use by going after domains matching *clue*.*.

Archie Publications protects the Veronica trademark for their own use by going after domains matching *veronica*.*.

Explain how these three sentences are significantly different, and for bonus points don't explain that it's because Linus is a saint and Hasbro and Archie Publications are satanic.

I agree.

[kwsNI]

I really have to agree with what he's doing. Being in-charge of the Linux trademark has to be a HUGE job. I think a lot of people, /.ers and all, really take advantage of Linux's good name. How many times have you gone to a web page just because the name of it matched something close to what you were looking for only to find it was completely off topic. Linus has the right to keep Linux domains on topic and I, for one, am glad he's doing this.

kwsNI

Re:I agree.

[leitchn]

How many times have you gone to a web page just because the name of it matched something close to what you were looking for only to find it was completely off topic?

A perfect example: accidentally went to www.ifoseek.com instead of www.infoseek.com at work.

In front of my Boss and his Boss.

Linus Cannot "Censor"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tthe word "censor" can only be used in reference to Government activities of stopping speech. The term has nothing to do with private entities doing so.

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[warghoul]

What exactly is it called when a private entity stops/prohibits/interferes with speech? The word censor has no inherent relationship to government.

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong
try opening a dictionary or going to
www.dictionary.com
they give you mutiple dictionaries definitions.

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[TheCarp]

um...sorry but the Americain Heritage Dictionary
disagrees with you:

censor (snsr)
n.

1.A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

2.An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.

3.One that condemns or censures.

4.One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census andsupervising public behavior and morals.

5.Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

---
The obvious one I am asserting here is #1.
There is no mention of WHO "Authorizes" a person.
USUALLY it is used in terms of a "Government"
action.

It should be noted that even in common usage,
employees of Television broadcasting stations
who decide what content has to be edited from
movies (which I find ruins the whole movie and
is the reason I refuse to watch movies on TV)
are called "Censors".

However, your statment that it can only be applied
to government action (as if the government is the
only sickening band of authoritarians around) is
a common assertation.

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[Anonymous Coward]

Main Entry: 2censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ Date: 1882 : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable Last time I checked, the government doesnt own the TM to censor ;)

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[Anonymous Coward]

Censor - A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

Probably the reason many people assert that only the government can censor, is because in the absence of trademark and copyright law (and illegal actions such as coersion), it IS only the government that can censor. Copyright and trademark law gives you your own mini-government over the use of your copyright/trademark.

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[ANTI]

Everybody can censor.

The government isn't allowed to censor.

That's all to it.

ciao
Anti

Re:Linus Cannot "Censor"

[TheCarp]

> Probably the reason many people assert that only
> the government can censor, is because in the
> absence of trademark and copyright law (and
> illegal actions such as coersion), it IS only
> the government that can censor. Copyright and
> trademark law gives you your own mini-government
> over the use of your

Which of course leads to the philosophical
questions of who gives the government the
right to censor or give someone else the right
to censor?

If I do not recognize the governments right
to censor, then why should I recognize their
right to authorize someone else to?

Generally, we assume that the government is
authorized to do whatever they want as they
are the "Supreme power". Or perhaps we say that
the powr of government derives from a mandate
of the masses? Perhaps it is a devine right?

The dictionary I am capable of using makes no
philosophical distinctions as to who has the
right to "authorize" this activity.

It's always good...

[benasdf]

...to explain yourself. That is really something I like about open source in general. Most of the time people are open and honest and do not try to hide anything.

Re:It's always good...

[cruise]

...to explain yourself. That is really something I like about open source in general. Most of the time people are open and honest and do not try to hide anything.

Not including the /. source code of course.




They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen

Re:It's always good...

[gmhowell]

With all of the bright hax0rs out there, why doesn't one of them hack the slashdot server, find *.pl, and post it?

N.B. While I'd like to see the code posted myself, I can't even claim that I'd know where to begin doing this.

Re:It's always good...

[cruise]

Now thats not very honest or open is it?

Not to say that it couldnt be done... but I feel that the folks here have a bit more respect for /. than to do that.


They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen

Where's the fun?

[SLOfuse]

This used to be more fun. What happened?

Re:Where's the fun?

[TheBigA]

Let's start a movement to throw all spammers and telemarketers in jail. Max security? -BigA

Couldn't agree more; some additional thoughts

[dougman]

1) In general, I agree with Linus' statements.

2) It's unfortunate that protecting one's trademark inevitably forces (per current law) the trademark holder to go to great lengths (read: expense) to protect the trademark. Personally, I can't see why the owner of a registered trademark shouldn't be allowed to selectively decide who may or may not use the trademark for their own pursuits. To force the owner to treat everyone equally seems kind of odd IMHO.

3) As a small (hopefully not for long) business owner myself, I've just filed a few trademark applications and I must say, the process isn't so bad, but it's prohibitively expensive, especially the issue of trademark searches. As a free bonus, let me mention a site I found where you can do free searches of the US trademark and service mark databases - an INVALUABLE utility for those without deep pockets interested in this sort of thing: Marksonline

Re:Couldn't agree more; some additional thoughts

[Kaa]

Personally, I can't see why the owner of a registered trademark shouldn't be allowed to selectively decide who may or may not use the trademark for their own pursuits.

He can. You can give permissions to use your trademark to anybody you like as often as you like. What you should NOT do is selectively prosecute *unauthorized* use. In other words, you can allow Alice to use your trademark, but if both Bob and Charlie use it without your permission, going only after Bob and ignoring Charlie will weaken the trademark.

Kaa

Re:Couldn't agree more; some additional thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried out that marksonline site:

LINUX
Status: New Application - Assigned to Examiner
Primary Class: 3 - Cosmetic and cleaning preparations
Classes: 3 - Cosmetic and cleaning preparations
Goods & Services: LAUNDRY DETERGENTS AND LAUNDRY BLEACHES FOR HOME USE; CLEANING PREPARATIONS FOR HOME USE; DEGREASING PREPARATIONS FOR HOME USE; GENERAL PURPOSE SCOURING POWDERS; SKIN SOAP FOR PERSONAL USE; PERFUME; ESSENTIAL OILS FOR PERSONAL USE; PREPARATIONS FOR PERSONAL HYGIENE AND COSMETIC PURPOSES, HAIR TONIC; TOOTHPASTE
Serial No: 75735641
Reg. No: 0000000

Filed: June 23, 1999

------------------------------------------------ --

Original Applicant
Name: Rosch (Swiss) AG

Address: Axensteinstr. 4
CH - 9000 St. Gallen CHX
Entity Type: Corporation

[ USPTO data through: 11-Jan-2000 ]

(Yeah, they had that *other* Linux too.)

At least Linus explained the situation!

[dustpuppy]

I used to run (well I guess I still do) a Calvin & Hobbes fan site which I started way back in 1994. Back then, Universal Press Syndicate (the owners of the rights to Calvin & Hobbes) went on a campaign to close every C&H fan site on the web.

Basically the reason behind their actions was the same as Linus' - to protect their trademark, they had to take action against any possible infringment of their copyright/trademark.

In the end, Universal Press Syndicate stopped pursuing fan sites for a number of reasons that one can only speculate - but I have always suspected that one of them was that there was no way that they could close sites faster than they were appearing.

Having read Linus' explanation, I have two observations:

• First, it's great that Linus has taken the time to explain the situation - Universal Press Syndicate merely shot threatening lawyer letters to webmasters.
• Second, will Linus' attempt to defend his trademark ultimately prove futile as more and more sites/companies/people start using the word Linux - I'm assuming that there is a strong possibility that the illegitimate use of the trademark Linux will outstrip Linus' ability to control it.

Re:At least Linus explained the situation!

[Ralph Wiggam]

Second, will Linus' attempt to defend his trademark ultimately prove futile as more and more sites/companies/people start using the word Linux - I'm assuming that there is a strong possibility that the illegitimate use of the trademark Linux will outstrip Linus' ability to control it.

Universal Press Syndicate had to pay those lawyers by the hour to send out threatening letters. Linus basically has an army of people willing to enforce his "linux" trademark.

-B

Re:At least Linus explained the situation!

[larien]

TSR (makers of AD&D) had a rampage in the early 90's against web sites about AD&D/D&D to protect their trademarks. They eventually loosened their stance provided you acknowledged the trademark and didn't copy copyrighted material. I'd guess Universal Press may have taken a similar stance.
--

Re:At least Linus explained the situation!

[WNight]

Doubtful, because for 99% of users, all they'll have to do to comply with his wishes will be put a (tm) by the first mention of Linux on the page, and explain at the bottom that it's a trademark of Linus.

Having a trademark doesn't mean nobody can use it, it just means they have to use it in a way compatible with your business, and with your permission.

The people who run sites that don't support the community, like the cyber squautters, will be squashed, the rest, they help, so they'll be granted permission to use the mark.


UPS didn't have to squash C&H websites, they just had to keep people from using the name without permission. If they had said "You're doing a service to the comic, as long as you properly credit the mark, you're allowed to use it." they'd have been just as legally protected. They just jumped in with lawyers blazing because they're assholes.

Re:At least Linus explained the situation!

[Robert S Gormley]

First, it's great that Linus has taken the time to explain the situation - Universal Press Syndicate merely shot threatening lawyer letters to webmasters.

Sorry, incorrect. The lawyer letters were fired off, and then came the explanations - to a different audience.

Might be good, might be a dud,

[Nodatadj]

http://www.lynux.com
I think.
From accidently finding it about a year ago
(It was an accident, honest)
I can't check if it still is what it was then, because I'm sitting in a packed computer room so if it's changed into something acceptable, or doesn't exist anymore, sorry.

Re:Might be good, might be a dud,

[CYberPhreak]

Yes. It still exists. And if it was porn back then, it still is today. Honest! I am on a UNIX terminal using lynx!

Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[anonymous loser]

Has everyone seen www.microsfot.com?

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea... I think I'm gonna register lniux.com and have it point to www.be.com ;)

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be doing Be a dis-service, the last thing they want is an angry mob of Linux coders cloning their API :-)

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[Tet]

:-)

I wonder how much that was influenced by Acronsfot? For non-UK readers, Acronsfot was a nickname for Acornsoft, the software division of Acorn Computers. It turns up in all sorts of unexpected places (try disassembling their Arcadians game, for example), and was quite popular throughout the BBC micro scene in the early '80s.

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[Lowther]

I agree with what Linus is saying in his statement, and his reasons and motivations for doing it. Unfortunately the URL of this site represents identically the type of attack on the 'Microsoft' trademark that he is trying to protect Linux from ! I would hope that Linus, if he were aware of this site, would encourage LinuxOnline to drop the www.microsfot.com URL

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[bmetzler]

I would hope that Linus, if he were aware of this site, would encourage LinuxOnline to drop the www.microsfot.com URL

Who says that Linux Online has anything to do with it?

• 
  Registrant:
  Linux Online (LINUX-DOM)
  P.O. Box 1068
  Laurel, MD 20725-1068
  USA
  
  Domain Name: linux.org
  
  Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
  McLagan, Michael (MM141) mmclagan@INVLOGIC.COM
  (301)490-7124 (FAX) (301)490-7162
  Billing Contact:
  McLagan, Michelle (MS249) michelle@INVLOGIC.COM
  (301)490-7124 (FAX) (301)490-7162
  
  Record last updated on 04-Nov-1998.
  Record created on 10-May-1994.
  Database last updated on 18-Jan-2000 14:03:13 EST.
  
  Domain servers in listed order:
  
  NS.INVLOGIC.COM 205.134.175.254
  NS0.AITCOM.NET 208.234.1.34

• 
  Registrant:
  JS technologies SA (MICROSFOT2-DOM)
  Rue du Centre 72
  St-Sulpice, 1025
  CH
  
  Domain Name: microsfot.com
  
  Administrative Contact:
  Szijarto, Jean-Stephane (JS3260) jss@JSTECHNO.CH
  +41 21 697 0451
  Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
  Christophe, Saintebarbe (SCT79) hostmaster@JSTECHNO.CH
  +41 21 671 1450 (FAX) +41 21 671 1455
  Billing Contact:
  Szijarto, Jean-Stephane (JS3260) jss@JSTECHNO.CH
  +41 21 697 0451
  
  Record last updated on 22-Nov-1999.
  Record created on 11-Jul-1997.
  Database last updated on 18-Jan-2000 14:03:13 EST.
  
  Domain servers in listed order:
  
  DNS1.JSTECHNO.CH 195.15.18.200
  DNS2.JSTECHNO.CH 195.15.18.252

You can point your IP anywhere you want, can't you?

-Brent

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[Lowther]

OK - perhaps he shouldn't then !

I will now adorn myself in sackcloth and ashes, and beg forgiveness of Linux Online.

It still is an issue relating to the dilution of the Microsoft trade mark, and parallels the issues raised by Linus Torvalds in his article.

Re:Speaking of trademarks and linux...

[bmetzler]

It still is an issue relating to the dilution of the Microsoft trade mark, and parallels the issues raised by Linus Torvalds in his article.

Yes, but then it's Microsoft resposibility to deal with it, not Linux Online's.

-Brent

Re:Trademark protection organization

[Floris]

If I'm not mistaken that already is Linux International's responsibility. - the man isn't referring to maddog at LI for no reason you know ;)

Floris

Re:Trademark law

[SPorter]

Did you even read Linus' letter? He made this very clear.

--
sporter

Interesting

[shitface]

Moderate the parent way up.

Unfortunately, he's right

[Our Man In Redmond]

Under US trademark and copyright laws, if you own a trademark you have to defend every misuse of your product you find. Otherwise, your trademark can become genericized. Here's a glaringly simplified example:

Say I make a product called OMIR's Covert Coke, "the drink for infiltrating and subverting large software companies." It becomes a modest success on campus. Microsoft's legal team thinks it's funny so they don't do anything about it. Coca-Cola's lawyers say we're too small to worry about so they don't bother us either.

Now somebody like R. J. Reynolds makes a cola they call "Coke-A-Rama." Coca-Cola doesn't like their name being associated with a cigarette company, so they try to issue an injunction against RJR making and selling the product under that name. RJR's lawyers can argue to invalidate the trademark on the grounds that, since Coca-Cola knew about OMIR's Covert Coke and didn't do anything about it, they relinquished the rights to the "Coke" trademark. And they would have a very good chance of winning.

Considering how much money Coca-Cola makes off of selling T-shirts, refrigerator magnets, windbreakers and the like with their "Coke" trademark on them, they aren't going to let this happen. It means a lot of money to them.

This leads to things like companies writing in to magazines to inform them that "we enjoyed your article on why photocopiers should be banned, but we wanted to remind you that the word 'Xerox' is a trademark for our particular brand of photocopier and should not be used as a generic synonym for the verb 'to photocopy.'"

Linus is in the same position. In order to defend the Linux trademark, he has to "crack the whip," so to speak. My wife used to have to do this for a company she worked for. It's annoying and time-consuming, but if Linus ever lost the trademark and with it his ability to veto uses of it, he would be sorry he hadn't (probably every time he heard it used for something he wished it wasn't).
--

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much money Coca-Cola makes off of selling T-shirts, refrigerator magnets, windbreakers and the like with their "Coke" trademark on them,

Yes, they obviously need to maintain their iron grip on the refrigerator magnet industry to survive. However, I have heard that the Coca Cola Company also makes some money in the soft drink market. Anyone have more info on that?

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Relforn]

You just explained why Linus, because he's already ignored people who infringe on the trademark, who he considers as following the same political agenda as he does. How many websites out there bandy around the Linux mark freely? Thousands.

You've already given it away, Linus. It's in the public domain. Give it up.

(does Metcalfe own the trademark on Open Sores?)

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[MartinB]

Microsoft's legal team thinks it's funny so they don't do anything about it

Legal teams don't find anything funny. It's their job to be dour humourless bastards.

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Our Man In Redmond]

Sorry, you're wrong. Legal teams do indeed occasionally find things funny. You, however, don't want to know what they would find funny, for the same reason you wouldn't want to know what a particularly malevolent Elder God might find funny. For one thing, it might involve you.
--

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. Have a bit of an agenda, do we? Boy, combine that with a complete misunderstanding of the previous post and complete ignorance of the laws involved and we've got a honey of a post here. I was going to post more, but I'm afraid the electron truck doesn't deliver until this afternoon and I don't want to waste any more of this morning's supply on you.

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[purp]

Just a fact worthy of note: trademark must be rigorously defended partly due to its lifespan -- forever. Copyright is less maintenance heavy because it eventually expires.* --j * in theory, and the Walt Disney Company's meddling notwithstanding

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Silver A]

Under US trademark and copyright laws, if you own a trademark you have to defend every misuse of your product you find. Otherwise, your trademark can become genericized.

This leads to things like companies writing in to magazines to inform them that "we enjoyed your article on why photocopiers should be banned, but we wanted to remind you that the word 'Xerox' is a trademark for our particular brand of photocopier and should not be used as a generic synonym for the verb 'to photocopy.'"

Then there are the trademarks a company wants to lose... like Heroin(tm).

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Esperandi]

Like the other 900 people responding to this /. article and the last, you need to learn that trademark laws are codified and real and are available at the USPTO website. Take a look at this quote from you for instance:
"Considering how much money Coca-Cola makes off of selling T-shirts, refrigerator magnets, windbreakers and the like with their "Coke" trademark on them, they aren't going to let this happen. It means a lot of money to them. "

Now, if you knew that trademarks are assigned to specific goods and services listed as a trademark is registered, you would know 2 things: #1, Coke has trademarks on softdrinks, T-shirts, magnets, windbreakers, ande verything else. The products are listed by name in a very very long list that Coke's trademarks cover. And they go no further.
#2, The Linux trademark lists ONE ITEM under its goods and services: computer operating systems. In other words, what Linus and his lawyers are doing is extra-legal at best, downright illegal at worst. His trademark does not apply to domain names, T-Shirts, hell, not even company names if they don't sell operating systems!

So no, Linus is not doing what he is legally responsible to do. He IS being a bully and trying to enforce this trademark that applies only in the situation of naming an operating system.

Esperandi

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[kms1]

"Now, if you knew that trademarks are assigned to specific goods and services listed as a trademark is registered, you would know 2 things: #1, Coke has trademarks on softdrinks, T-shirts, magnets, windbreakers, ande verything else. The products are listed by name in a very very long list that Coke's trademarks cover. And they go no further.
#2, The Linux trademark lists ONE ITEM under its goods and services: computer operating systems. In other words, what Linus and his lawyers are doing is extra-legal at best, downright illegal at worst. His trademark does not apply to domain names, T-Shirts, hell, not even company names if they don't sell operating systems! "

Somehow I doubt the legality of this. If I created
a new operating system and called it oh say,
Coca-Cola, I'm guessing the lawyers for coke would
have something to say about it if my project ever
took off.

Re:Unfortunately, he's right

[Our Man In Redmond]

Most of the people here are probably too young to remember Kentucky Fried Computers, an upstart company back in the late 70s that made CP/M boxes. They were visited by the Colonel's lawyers, who made their displeasure known. The company was renamed soon after, to Northstar if memory serves.
--

oh, man

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that blows my investing in LinuxOne....








NOT

futile, indeed

[The Queen]

Second, will Linus' attempt to defend his trademark ultimately prove futile as more and more sites/companies/people start using the word Linux

Yes, I believe so. Unless you send a surfing force of thousands out onto the net every day there's no way you can really keep your name safe. I do agree with you that it's great that Linus is taking the time to de-mystify the monster, but I really don't see a way to solve the problem (especially with the current growth of the web).

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Re:futile, indeed

[lar3ry]

Yes, I believe so. Unless you send a surfing force of thousands out onto the net every day there's no way you can really keep your name safe.

I think you just defined the Slashdot readership.

[smile]
--

Re:futile, indeed

[Augie De Blieck Jr.]

Yes, I believe so. Unless you send a surfing force of thousands out onto the net every day there's no way you can really keep your name safe. I do agree with you that it's great that Linus is taking the time to de-mystify the monster, but I really don't see a way to solve the problem (especially with the current growth of the web).

But isn't that what makes Open Source so great? We have a community of thousands already on the web programming on various products, helping to kill off FUD, evangelizing to the population at large about Linux. So we add one more task to that list -- Linux trademark protection. When you see a violator, you report it to LI.

All of us surf the web pretty heavily, I'm guessing. All of us have probably, out of curiosity, typed in some oddball combination of words to see if there's a site with that name. All of us have probably misspelled a URL and gone to the wrong site... I'm sure we could keep up with this. I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to this stuff, if little else.

-Augie

Re:futile, indeed

[orcrist]

Yes, I believe so. Unless you send a surfing force of thousands out onto the net every day there's no way you can really keep your name safe.

And, of course, hardly any of the millions of avid Linux users ever surf the web looking for Linux stuff...

Chris

Re:futile, indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

He said surfing, not portscanning.

Re:futile, indeed

[HiThere]

1) IANAL
2) I don't believe that you actually need to attack every violation of your trademark, merely to make a reasonable defense, so that there is no pattern of ignoring violations. If you make a reasonable defence then the defensive argument of "He's just picking on me!" doesn't wash.

This is just buisness as usual.

[Munky_v2]

Come on folks. Now I know in this thread that most people supported Linus' decision to protect the name, but I want to speak seriously to those who think we are being a bunch of hypocrites. What Linus did by protecting the Linux trademark was a legitimate business move. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean that Linux is a business at all. What I mean is that Linus and all of us who truly support Linux, heart and soul, have a vested interest in protecting our good name. Linus Torvalds, as the trademark owner, has the right to pay no mind to those who are using the Linux name in a serious and productive manner. However, if he sees it being used in a manner that can potentially damage the reputation of our community, he has every right to tell those people "knock it off I will sue you".

We cannot expect that because we all have good intentions, we are going to be left alone and no one will try to damage the Linux name. We need this kind of balance in the community if we are going to move beyond being simply a "geek hobby"
That's my $.02


Munky_v2

I meant Linus not Linux!!!

[orcrist]

Damn! Damn! Damn! Damn! I even previewed :-(

More coffee!

Chris

Re:I meant Linus not Linux!!!

[matty]

Yeah, I do that all the time. Must be from all the times I've typed 'cd /usr/src/linux' or whatever. :)

Reassuring, but

[Jon Peterson]

"but this is our beloved Linux Trademark. " (quote from /. editor, not Linus)

Speak for yourself. No trademark is beloved as far as I'm concerned, and I think this says something about the community. People are starting to care a whole lot more about names and labels, and I think it is a shame.

Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing? I notice that www.perlprogrammer.com is also 'squatted'. I don't hear Larry Wall getting the lawyers in. Or O'Reilly, for that matter. Gee, maybe Perl will get a really bad name - oh, but then with no Perl IPO's, that won't be hurting any back pockets too much, will it....

Sure, I can sympathise with Linus feeling miffed at a bunch of yobs, but that doesn't mean we should all cheer and wave flags. Linus happens to be able to call in the lawyers. Most people who make free software what it is can't do that and never have been able to. That hasn't really hurt free software much. If Linus wants to get legal so that he feels better, I think that's fine, if he can afford it.

But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community*, I'm not going to be happy, because I'm part of that community and it does me no good. And if other people start claiming that he's doing it for the good of the communtiy, I'll get really pissed off. Especially if those people own shares in Linux companies.

For me, it's a community of people, and to a lesser extend a community of software. When it starts to be a community of 'OS friendly companies' or 'Trademark owners' or 'Approved cool people as voted by the /. mob' then I'll wave good bye to the lot of it.

I've got more hobbies and interests than programming and computers. If people want to make it all about trademarks and IPO's and what have you I'll spend more time sailing and cooking, and less time writing free software. No big deal. Either that or I'll go back to the world of Windows shareware, which is a whole lot less bitchy and is starting to produce better software.


*I'm not suggesting that he is, BTW.

Re:Reassuring, but

[grumpy_geek]

Agree completely, it's really amazing how the Slashdot community bands together against trademarks and then all of the sudden they backpeddle since this is Linux it gets to play by different rules....

I'm thinking I might just have to make a list of every poster on this message pro-trademark lawsuit; so that if they ever bring up a complaint against another company doing it, I will have to remind them how shallow they really are. It's really no wonder companies are warry of Linux, what large is going to take Linux seriously when the people who are advocating it, are showing that they are willing to excuse the same items they are most vocally against when it comes to their beloved Linux.

Not standing behind what ones says is a big peeve of mine, when people start compromising their stated ideals; because they don't feel they should hold certain items to the same rules (because they really like it) shows how shallow they really are.

spell and grammar check off because I don't care

Re:Reassuring, but

[nevets]

Agree completely, it's really amazing how the Slashdot community bands together against trademarks and then all of the sudden they backpeddle since this is Linux it gets to play by different rules....

I don't ever recall a post against Trademarks. Well, that's not entirely true, I do remember the aolsearch thingy. But there were several that were on both sides of the issue.

We mostly band against patents which is entirely different. A trademark doesn't stop me from doing the things I do. Where as patents (stupid ones) do. Mainly the Amizon one-click and that guy with the Y2K windowing. Both simple ideas that were patented.

Now if Linux/Linus were to patent something, I don't think you would see us agreeing with him. But if you do, then we definitely are hypocrites.

Steven Rostedt

Re:Reassuring, but

[grumpy_geek]

No not IP, trademarks and specifically who owns a domain.

I remember (OK fuzzily) lots of posts about how big-X corporation finds out that some fan (or foe) has a similar domain and goes to shut it down. I could go lookup specific examples if you want, but the Sun Java ones (going after coffee shops, etc) is one that pops into my mind, there have been lots of posts on these types of issues.

Whether you are for it or against it, I don't care just put some thought into what your opinion is and then pick a side of the fence don't start acting like hypoctrites changing your opinion when it is an easy way out.

Re:Reassuring, but

[lscoughlin]

Whoa there slow down.

You are like one of those people i knew
in highschool that were all into a certain
band untill all of a sudden it was popular
then that band sucked because they were
sell outs....

Your missing the point entirely. How about
going back and reading what Linus wrote
and then posting a specific criticism rather
than spewing the outsiders angst.

Re:Reassuring, but

[John Whitley]

No trademark is beloved as far as I'm concerned, and I think this says something about the community. People are starting to care a whole lot more about names and labels, and I think it is a shame.

Well, this Computer Scientist's take is that namespace pollution is a Bad Thing(tm). 8-) Names are especially important to understand who the 'speaker' is in a name-related claim. While there may be problems with the implementation of trademark law, clarity with respect to identity does serve a lofty goal: that of rational, informed discourse.

For me, it's a community of people, and to a lesser extend a community of software. When it starts to be a community of 'OS friendly companies' or 'Trademark owners' or 'Approved cool people as voted by the /. mob' then I'll wave good bye to the lot of it.

You make the implicit assertion that the presence of trademark owners and corporate activity related to the various free software communities is a problem. As if corpratism will somehow Borg-ify all of the developers of free software projects, or that we'll all wake up one day to discover that there are no people in the community, only corporations?!?

I, for one, don't buy it. The presence of "trademarks and IPO's" in no way detracts from my computing and free software interests. If anything, I find it invigorating that people are exploring ways to pursue the goals of free software as well as make a living doing it. Why is this a good thing? Because in creating such new business and social models, we will hopefully teach the world that free software can ultimately be not only a viable choice, but a better alternative for all involved parties.

Re:Reassuring, but

[WNight]

I think that Linus having the Linux trademark is a good thing. Or, at least, the least of the evils, assuming we have to have trademarks.

If Linus did get too nasty with it, we could pick up and move on, producing an OS identical to Linux, but with a different name. It wouldn't have the same market forces behind it, but it would be free of those same market forces at the same time.

And, having Linus dictate who can't use the Linux trademark is handy, it keeps MS from labelling one release of Win2k 'Linux', or something.

As free software types, with the GPL protecting us, we can't be hurt, we can just pick up and move on. I don't have any money riding on ANY software companies, let alone any Linux ones, so I'm not supporting this because of any financial reason.

Re:Reassuring, but

[On Lawn]

HAHA, good one.

I am not the poster of what you are reaponding to but what he wrote did strike a resonant chord with me. Oddly enough I even used to be that way in High School. Nowadays I really don't care.

But the poster wrote about something interesting, and something I really identify with. Linux isn't so much a popular fringe rock band. Its more like a refugee camp. And we all have shared a real commrodery that is found in them.

Back when I first went with linux, it was as a refugee from Windows. Like Linus himself I felt there had to be a better way. Windows was only 16 bit, while processors had understood 32 bit code for years.

And as a refugee camp, the motto was to include people. Like America in the 19th century "Give us your downtrodden and oppressed." We liked each other, not becuase we were different or strange but becuase we all were cast in the flattering light of unity. Then our differences and oddities were highlighted and looked cool.

And in a way we wouldn't second guess anyone in the community becuase it was a uncomfortable place to be, you know they had to love it to be there.

Now Linux is successful. Not a refugee camp anymore, its becoming a global power. It was easier in the day when all we had was each other. No one could steal that, or would even see any value to steal.

Now there is value to protect. Do we horde it like the people we were fleeing from? How do we distribute it?

Many of us morn the loss of those good old days. The origional poster sees Linus's crack down as a change away from that. I don't consider it so much outsider's angst as wanting us to me more including of people and ideas again. I feel very much the same way.

I agree with Linus on protecting the name however. Linux is something now, and if people want to be carpet-baggers or charletons to steal it away or profit from it, then they don't fit inside a community of mutual respect and sharing that Linux is.

Meanwhile, I search for the good old days in something new and exciting. Maybe its EROS, maybe its still being discovered...



^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~

Re:Reassuring, but

[nlvp]

You're implying hypocrisy where there is none. (At least from me!)

I for one hate it when a large company squashes a small but legitimate company by using it's trademark rights. That's old news and we all know where we stand on that.

On the other hand, if Microsoft decide to tread heavily on "www.microsoftexperts.com" because it's really a fanatsy website promoting illicit massage in Seattle, I'm not going to stop them. In fact, I think it's their right - it's an abuse of the name, and whilst the legalese for this is, "Erodes the built-up goodwill of the brand name", the translation is really, "I built a respectable product and you're abusing it's name and that pisses me off." I can understand that point of view and I will disagree with anyone criticising Microsoft for shutting down the site in this example. (PS It is a ficticious example and I am not an MS fan/employee so please get your rottweiler off my leg).

Linus clearly states that where a precise use of the trademark is requested he has no problem authorising it, in fact, authorisation may not even be required. This is a good thing.

If I start up a company that works in the Linux community or supports Linux users, I don't want to find that my Virtual next door neighbour with a very similar address is actually the internet equivalent of a brothel with the same brand name as me if I think this will cause me to lose customers or the ability to keep my company afloat.

If I had shares in any company, I'd be somewhat peeved at the existence of unrelated companies calling themselves the same thing as me, if their existence had a negative impact on the potential future of the company I am a part-owner of. I think that's a legitimate attitude, and where the law allows it, I'll encourage the management of my company to go do something about it. I want my customers to know what they're getting.

In Linux's case, the brand name is owned by Linus, but his attitude to it makes it as if it was owned by the community. He allows us all to use it as we wish providing it takes nothing away from others. I like that, I think it should be encouraged.

Re:Reassuring, but

[dillon_rinker]

Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing?

Have you not heard of RMS's obnoxious correction of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux"? I don't blame or fault him for this at all, but he's obviously VERY concerned with "names and labels", as you put it.

If Microsoft started selling GNU 2000, how do you think RMS would respond? It's a hypothetical, I know. MS would NEVER do such a thing - it would engender too much strife and distrust of the company.

But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community. (I'm not suggesting that he is, BTW.)

He doesn't suggest he's doing it for the good of the community. You're the one who brought that up. He does seem to be claiming to do it for the good of Linux. Note that Linux is not the linux community (whatever that may be).

Re:Reassuring, but

[Jon Peterson]

You make the implicit assertion that the presence of trademark owners and corporate activity related to the various free software communities is a problem. As if corpratism will somehow Borg-ify all of the developers of free software projects, or that we'll all wake up one day to discover that there are no people in the community, only corporations?!?

Yup, I do :-). I guess some people would agree and others wouldn't and now's not the time to discuss it. Yes, I feel that corporatism corrupts, and that money and fame corrupt. Or if you think corrupt is too strong (it implies immorality, which I don't intend), then 'change for the worse'.

I'll plainly state this is a personal bias. I enjoy volunteer work. Human interactions that don't involve money or fame have a quality that I personally like, and those qualities, in my experience DO NOT survive the introduction of money or fame. It's that simple.

Re:Reassuring, but

[Jon Peterson]

I AM the original poster, but the above post sums it up well :-)

For me, the Linux community (in as much as there _is_ such a thing) will go the same way as Usenet or anything else. The decay is inevitable. You cannot have a dinner party of 100 guests. It isn't good or bad, it's just a fact of human society and interaction. After point, the number of people, the disparate desires, the search for fame, or money, or whatever simply changes the society into something different.

That's fine, I prefer small groups that are not money motivated (or even money interested). I'll go find one that is (I dunno, the folks at POV-Ray for all their NON-opensource ness were the friendliest, sanest, nicest crown I ever found on the net).

But to carry on waving a flag that no-one believes in is just unpleasant. The community is in danger of becoming like a corrupt labour union that proclaims much about the workers and the needs of the people, but actually just serves the power and politics of its own leaders and its more ambitious members.

Re:Reassuring, but

[yarmond]

There is ultimately a significant difference between a trademark on Java and one on Linux. Java is a normal English word; Linux is not. In fact, the only other use of 'Linux' of which I am aware is a brand of laundry detergent.

Re:Reassuring, but

[Robert S Gormley]

"but this is our beloved Linux Trademark. " (quote from /. editor, not Linus)

Quite apart from the fact that this makes us out to be a bunch of raving hypocrites with double standards - this quote did not impress me at all.

mylinux.com

[dlc]

bash $ whois
mylinux.com@whois.networksolutions.com
[whois.networksolutions.com]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

Registrant:
mylinux.com (MYLINUX2-DOM)
321 Cameron Pl. #1
Glendale, CA 91207
US

Domain Name: MYLINUX.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Karim, Elaagouby (EK2679) rrobb@KTB.NET
1-818-550-1738
Billing Contact:
Abdelkrim, Elaagouby (EA2375) rrobb@KTB.NET
1-818-550-1738

Record last updated on 11-May-1999.
Record created on 30-Nov-1998.
Database last updated on 18-Jan-2000 14:03:13 EST.

Re:mylinux.com

[gmhowell]

Offtopic? Yet another moderator who isn't terribly bright. It is peripherally on topic, as Linus mentioned a domain (mylinux.com) that he wasn't sure whether it was real or not. This poster merely checked up on it, and posted the information. Of course, had the moderator read the original article (you don't even need to leave this page!) and used a bit of common sense (!?) the moderator wouldn't have done that.

Questioning moderation (-1)
Flamebait (-1)
Troll (-1)

Your choice.

linuxchick.com

[acb]

There was once a porn site named linuxchick.com.
It had no obvious Linux content, unless one counts the word "Linux" in its title banners. Seems like some pornmonger decided to repackage their content and tie it to a trendy buzzword.

It was mentioned in NtK sometime last year.

Cybersquatting laws require proof of bad faith

[rcade]

I think Torvalds is overstating the strength of cybersquatting laws here. I've read a few of these laws because I didn't want to run afoul of them as a domain owner. In order to get in trouble, you have to prove a bad faith intent to profit from someone else's trademark.

How can I prove bad faith, as a domain owner?

1) Register a domain that includes someone else's trademark, then contact that person with an offer to sell the domain.

2) Register several domains that include the same trademark in different ways, as the owner of msdwonline.com did recently. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter is going after him in court as a result, and I wouldn't want to be him.

3) Publish something at the domain related to the trademark I don't own that creates confusion in the marketplace about whether I'm the trademark owner or not.

4) Publish something at the domain that is so scandalous or disreputable the trademark owner would fear damage to his reputation.

Avoid these four things and you have a much stronger hold on a domain. Torvalds seems to believe that merely owning or trying to sell a domain with Linux in it is sufficient proof of bad faith. From my desk miles away from the nearest lawyer, I don't think that's true.

Re:Cybersquatting laws require proof of bad faith

[jdwtiv]

>2) Register several domains that include the same
> trademark in different ways, as the owner of
> msdwonline.com did recently. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
> is going after him in court as a result, and I
> wouldn't want to be him.

But isn't this exactly what happened? Someone registered a bunch of domains with Linux in the name and put them up for auction. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the link...

Re:Cybersquatting laws require proof of bad faith

[rcade]

But isn't this exactly what happened? Someone registered a bunch of domains with Linux in the name and put them up for auction.

Torvalds isn't just talking about SeriousDomains. He's saying that anyone who registers a domain with Linux in it, does not publish anything there and appears to be fielding for-sale offers is cybersquatting. He believes he has the legal right to take that domain away because the person is blocking the domain from being used by others.

Transmeta Website..

[legoboy]

Linus does mention it in passing, but since people seem so obsessed over it, the Transmeta website has been updated to say that the real content will go live at noon (pacific) today.

Maybe some of you care? I don't think it's that offtopic.

------

secrecy lifted from transmeta

[eliasj]

The last line is IMHO the most intresting of this message:

...We're finally getting the shroud of secrecy lifted from transmeta.

That is news for nerds, trademark-disputes are not. Anyone thinking this is old news please post an URL.

/Elias

Re:secrecy lifted from transmeta

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is; http://www.transmeta.com

Nominal Fee

[IIH]

Personally I think a suitable "nominal" fee should be in the currency that Linux is best known for - good, solid, well-written code!


--

It's Ugly, but it's True. :-(

[farrellj]

The last thing we need is some scam artist to get some investment money based upon a web site with the name Linux in it. That means good money is lost to legit hackers, and goes to a scam artist. Virtually all the domains that have Linux in them and almost any other common word have been registered, and very few of them have real Linux projects behind them. And that is sad.

ttyl
Farrell

Re:It's Ugly, but it's True. :-(

[Anonymous Coward]

The name your are looking for is LinuxOne!

We have no product and no Linux experience, but we want investors to give us many millions of dollars!

Kudos to Linus...

[pb]

Hey, Linus, thanks for reminding me about the Transmeta(tm) announcement! I know what I'm going to be reading on slashdot tomorrow....

I know enough about trademark law to feel sorry for the man, I'm sure he hates this crap as much as we do. But, it's good to know that "our creator" is looking out for the good name of Linux(tm). And I'm glad religion doesn't work the same way. :)

Also, now I want to start a yyyy corp and trademark xxxx(tm). :)

xxxx is a trademark of yyyy.
Neener, neener, profits are for losers... (Dilbert)
All other trademarks are owned by their respective owners.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

I knew the bride when she used to rock and roll.

[boojum_uc]

Success happened. When fun stuff becomes big business its a lot less fun because theres much more at stake. Money brings every con artist in the book out of the woodwork. It also brings the lawyers. Also, more people are involved, so you can be much less assured that the people who are along for the ride have the same principles and goals that you (the original crowd) had or has.

With any sub-group, theres usually originally a fairly homogenous community. By the fact that someone was involved with Linux, you could make certain assumptions about that persons interests or concerns. Those assumptions werent always true, but they provided a workable basis.

Now that Linux has so much more money involved, you cant assume anything about somebodys involvement. The community has become like a small town suddenly faced with the need for burglar alarms and locks on the front door. Its not fun. Your neighbor used to be able to come over and walk right in. But improved transportation and a suddenly diverse population make that no longer an option. It doesnt feel nice to have to take these preventative measures, but they are (sadly) necessary.

If Linus loses control of the trademark, it doesnt mean that it will be uncontrolled. It probably would just mean that it was controlled by the people with the biggest marketing budgets who could shout down the other people in the conversation. While Im sorry that this sort of legal business is necessary, Im glad that its being handled firmly.

Just like Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

He is in the same position as Disney. In the past, Disney has sent cease-and-desist letters to daycare centers around the US. Why? Because someone at the center had decorated with unlicensed copies of the Disney characters. In reality they didn't care about this. But, had they not forced the issue, anyone could begin stealing the characters -- because Disney stopped enforcing the trademarks. It's an all or nothing situation -- you have to be very vigiliant, or you will lose your trademark.

Re:Trademark law

[Relforn]

Linus has to broadly defend the Linux trademark. That means that any citation of it where the use could be interpreted as a trademark (meaning any company name, any commercialish website) has to receive the same degree of attention if the trademark's ownership isn't credited to him. He hasn't done this, instead he's chose to pick on just those places where it doesn't mesh with his political agenda.

He could very well lose rights to the mark before too much longer. This wouldn't be a loss to somebody else, it would just mean the former trademark Linux would belong to us all.

Would that be such a terrible thing? I don't particularly care if the word Linux serves any particular body of people's political agenda.

[OT] Re:Thank You (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyright, and ostensibly the publisher collects a royalty every time the song is sung?

Re:[OT] Re:Thank You (TM)

[odaiwai]

Only if it's performed in public for profit. You can sing it at home all you want.

dave

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a difference between fair and unjust enforcement of trademarks.

I'd like to think that /. readers would get annoyed if linus chose to sue "linux brand laundry detergent" over infringement. While discouraging squatters (lowest scum on the planet) is an all around good thing that more people should do.

These people are trying to unfairly make money from Linus's trademark, while screwing legitimate people who want to use the domains. Linus is standing up for the community

I'm confused, what about NASDAQ ticker symbols?

[jquiroga]

In contrast (to give some tangible examples), something like "VA Linux" or "Red Hat Linux" oviously isn't a generic term: it's a very _targeted_ term for something very specific. Those kinds of names do not detract from other peoples ability to call _their_ Linux company something else.

I'm confused. If Linus believes this, I don't know why he let VA Linux choose 'LNUX' as their NASDAQ ticker symbol. They should have chosen perhaps 'VALX', and not be too general. After all, aren't NASDAQ symbols just like domain names?

In my opinion, Red Hat did the right thing with 'RHAT'

Re:I'm confused, what about NASDAQ ticker symbols?

[elixir]

I'm not sure trademark law counts against incomplete spellings.

i.e. Microsoft vs. Micosoft
Linux vs. Lnux

Can someone answer that for us?

Re:I'm confused, what about NASDAQ ticker symbols?

[um... Lucas]

Nasdaq owns the ticker symbols. They aren't licensed to companies. And they can move them around as they see fit.

I think, but i'm not sure, that tickers can be 5 or 6 letters long... But maybe it's not nasdaq, but rather on the OTC bulletin boards.

I definetly think that no matter how much people slam LinuxOne, VA Linux definetly pulled the sleezier tactic by asking for LNUX. I have seen SO MANY articles about the Linux operating system that have hyperlinks cross-referenceing themselves to VA Linux.

Re:I'm confused, what about NASDAQ ticker symbols?

[Super_Frosty]

3 digit or smaller ticker symbols are for the big guys, the heavy hitters, companies like IBM (IBM) or Lucent (LU). Smaller cap stocks will have 4-5 letter ticker symbols.

In general, brokers charge a higher comission on stocks with longer tickers, probably because they have a lower volume and it's more difficult to make trades.

Re:I'm confused, what about NASDAQ ticker symbols?

[jazman]

Depends. If Micosoft is an engineering company producing, say, lathe parts, then clearly there is no infringement.

But if Micosoft produces a software product that it chooses to call Crapdows, which crashes a lot and doesn't do anything useful, then they might start to see complaining letters from MS.

Could be read differently...

[JamesKPolk]

Do you like linux? good.

Linus likes linux, too. And he wants more people to like linux. So he's jumped through the legal hoops. and laid down the cash, to turn linux into Linux (tm).

Linux (tm) is just another name for the kernel. So when Slashdot editors write "our beloved Linux Trademark"... just read it as "our beloved Linux".

Re:Could be read differently...

[Mark J Tilford]

<>

Actually, no. Somebody else laid down the cash to turn Linux into Linux (tm), who then tried to extort money from anyone using the word. Linus and others managed to get the trademark defeated.
-----------

Re:Could be read differently...

[JamesKPolk]

The lawyers have fought the rogue registration, and the lawyers who are now defending Linus' registration, are not working pro bono, are they?

Somebody (Linus' email didn't explain) must be paying for the lawyers, who are working so diligently to defend the Linux trademark. Whether Linus is paying for them himself, or if some benevolent organisation is paying on Linus' behalf...

People see the Linux trademark as a symbol to the world not only of the kernel itself, but as a symbol of the whole "Free Software", "Open Source", "Bazaar" community. As Linus said, "I'd rather not apologize for it", it being our beloved community.

I think you misspelled "Lay The Smack Down Upon".

[M-2]

But I may be wrong.

You may have just mispelled Kick The Punk Ass To Hell And Back Again.

Have a nice day!

Flamebait?!??? Get a clue, moderator!

[Ravenfeather]

Flamebait? Not in a million years! This is the funniest thing I've seen here all day, not to mention completely true.

Well Chris, looks like your bad luck that Signal11 had some moderation points left. ;-)

The thing that bothers me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that the lawyers are making money. Man, it's like they make money suing and defending...it's gotta be the best job out there...

whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

what i dont understand is how people here can say that etoys.com is an evil entity for trying to protect their trademark as per the whole etoy fiasco, then turn around and praise linus for doing the exact same thing. sheep.

Re:whatever.

[TurboJustin]

The difference is that etoy.com is a domain that existed for years before etoys.com was even a dream - etoy could, theoretically, sue etoys.com for having their 'art fans' confused by a toy site. Had etoy created their domain *after* etoys was in business, well-known, etc.. there might be a case. Linus is defending the trademark from domain squatters - people who are making money directly on his trademark. This is akin to selling Coke jackets without Coca-Cola's permission. They have no product to sell except for crappy domains with the word 'linux' in them. Take out the word 'linux' and noone wants the domain. The purchasers of the domains, if they were using them for something at least remotely linux-related, wouldn't be infringing on the copyright, but the squatters were.

Re:whatever.

[consumer]

Well, actually, etoy did do some things to increase the confusion of visitors who got there by accident. They did that whole faux stock thing and they put pictures of toys on their homepage. So, they were trying to gain something from confusion with the eToys trademark, which is basically what that whole lawsuit was about.

Let law determine what's "acceptable"

[aozilla]

"I (and obviously a lot of other people) do not want to have "Linux" as a name associated with unacceptable (or borderline) behaviour, and it's important that "Linux" doesn't get a name of being associated with scams, cybersquatting, etc etc."
If I wanted Linus to choose what behavior is unacceptable and what is not, I would have elected him to Congress. If there's a scam, it is already illegal and will be shutdown anyway. If it's cybersquatting, and you want it to be illegal, contact your congressman. If enough people agree with you, you might just get your way. My real problem, is "etc etc". What if Linus decides that worshipping Budha is "unacceptable behavior"? It's just not his job to determine that. "Linux" is not free if a single person has the right to determine when it's right or wrong to use it.

Re:Let law determine what's "acceptable"

[Anonymous Coward]

> What if Linus decides that worshipping Budha is > "unacceptable behavior"? It's just not his job > to determine that. In general, it isn't, but when associated with Linux, I'd really say it is. Since it is his trademark, he decides what he want it associated to. If I was a Christian (which I am NOT, thank you very much), I wouldn't want my work associated with, for example (when we already into the religious business), Satanism.

Re:Let law determine what's "acceptable"

[aozilla]

Linux is not Linus's work. It is the work of all the people who have contributed anything to the GNU/Linux system. Perhaps you could argue that the term "Linux" is Linus's, since he (I'd assume), coined the term, but then you'd have to argue that people can own words, which I'd disagree with (even though the law is such).

Question about www.linux.com

[sanderb]

No opinion but a question.

Wasn't there like this dispute over www.linux.com. That Fred van Kempen (was it him, some Dutch guy?) eventually sold this domain for a lot of money. Shouldn't Linus have been policing there, as he explains if he did not do it in that case about what other domain could he possibly complain??

confused...

Re:Question about www.linux.com

[TurboJustin]

Linux.com is a portal. The domain wasn't sold, the entire *site* was sold, IIRC. The domain also wasn't purchased purely to be sold, it was held and used for an extended period of time and then sold to an interested party - it wasn't misused, and still isn't being misused. Had it been purchased and turned into a porn site, Linus might have something to say.

Re:Question about www.linux.com

[sanderb]

it was held and used for an extended period of time

Don't know about that, as I remember it the site was completely void of content at least just before it was sold off. Are you sure about this?

Re:Question about www.linux.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there like this dispute over www.linux.com. That Fred van Kempen (was it him, some Dutch guy?) eventually sold this domain for a lot of money.

As much as I've heard (around thousand times), he has GIVEN the LINUX.COM domain name. He accepted 'offers' (in terms of: what will linux.com be used for?), and VA Linux has got it.

Re:Question about www.linux.com

[st.n.]

Wasn't there like this dispute over www.linux.com. That Fred van Kempen (was it him, some Dutch guy?) eventually sold this domain for a lot of money.

Yes he did, but he didn't give it to the one who offered him the most money, but instead to the company which he trusted most that they make the best out of that domain.

And, if I remember right, there was quite a big difference between the amount he could have got and the amount he actually got.

--
See you at the LinuxWorld Expo!

Remember, Linus NEVER started any of this

[BitMan]

Remember, Linus NEVER started any of this.

The only reason Linus even owns the trademark is because of greedy @$$ decided to do it. Then he had his lawyers start forcing the (R) on everything that beared the name "Linux." Authors, publishers and the like.

Linux would have rather had some pro-Linux organization do it and keep it open. He talked about this after the whole fiasco started. He NEVER intended to register it himself.

Check out the USPTO Database for Linux. Note the (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr!

-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

Down boy, Down!

[nevets]

Speak for yourself. No trademark is beloved as far as I'm concerned, and I think this says something about the community. People are starting to care a whole lot more about names and labels, and I think it is a shame.

As Linux goes from a hobby to Business (which it already has) you do need to be concerned about names and labels. If corporations were able to start abusing the Linux trademark then those that do Linux as a hobby may have more trouble. Say if you are serious about a hobby and want to do your own web site, but it was squatted!

Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing?

Well I can't speek for the FSF, but I do think they would if you started abusing the GNU label. RMS still thinks it should be called GNU/Linux. Talk about being concerned about labels. I did like the mention of calling it Linux/GNU so it doesn't sound like Linux is part of GNU.
As for Mr. Wall, well, he's a nut anyway (in a good way! ;^) so I don't know what he thinks!

Most people who make free software what it is can't do that and never have been able to. That hasn't really hurt free software much.

Like I said above, as free software becomes more business like, it will hurt!

But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community*, I'm not going to be happy, because I'm part of that community and it does me no good. And if other people start claiming that he's doing it for the good of the communtiy, I'll get really pissed off. Especially if those people own shares in Linux companies.

Well, maybe not the good of the community, but for the good of Linux itself. Linux was started by Linus, and he still wants control of it, in all aspects. I don't blame him. Disclaimer: I don't really own Linux stock, but I do own Andover (So I guess I own Slashdot!).

I've got more hobbies and interests than programming and computers. If people want to make it all about trademarks and IPO's and what have you I'll spend more time sailing and cooking, and less time writing free software. No big deal. Either that or I'll go back to the world of Windows shareware, which is a whole lot less bitchy and is starting to produce better software.

Well don't pay attention to what others do. I write code because I like to. It's not just a hobby to me, I like to get more involved. I also have several other hobbies, but this is one that challenges me intellectually. I don't think the "slash dot mob" will leave out someone that is doing something that they believe in.

Steven Rostedt

What started this all?

[Anonymous Coward]

What started this all?

Play on words, etc

[Uruk]

Hmmm...I sort of agree with you, but in Nasdaq, you do seem to be limited to 4 characters to get your point across whereas on the web you can have a hostname like

http://extremely-infringing-linux-site-selling-h ardcore-pr0n.com/

whereas if that was a ticker symbol, LPR0N wouldn't even fit. :) Maybe it's a question of immediate recognizeability. Also, it may be that with trademarks, it's a game of picking nits, and "Linux Foo" contains the word "Linux" and therefore could possibly infringe on the trademark. But, LNUX, LINX don't contain the word "Linux" (I told you this was picking nits) and therefore don't infringe.

Just throwing out some ideas, I know more about eastern samoan jungle gym construction than I do about trademark law.

Re:Play on words, etc

[jquiroga]

I don't say that VA Linux people aren't honest, I am sure they are very nice. I just asked because I'm still confused about what's acceptable or not when using (or abusing) the Linux trademark, and Linus didn't mention this particular issue.

I think that the 4-character limitation in NASDAQ ticker symbols actually makes this worse than domain name squatting, because there aren't many ticker symbols that rhyme with Linux. Now, one of them is used by a company that sells hardware, congratulations to them.

The problem with 'LNUX' is that some investors will think VA Linux is the only Linux company listed on NASDAQ, others will think that Linux is a piece of hardware, others will think that Linux needs special hardware to run on, and others, who knows what they will think!

Re:Play on words, etc

[jovlinger]

There was a case someone posted tangentially a while ago pointing out that some linux index fund was using the wrong symbol for redhat (REDH instead of RHAT), so they were off by so many percent.

I grinned.

Re:Play on words, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like if you registered the domain www.linuxsex.com? Oh wait, some one already did that.....

Geez, what an extremist!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate extremists. In fact extremists like you should be taken out and shot!

And that goes for the spammers and telemarketers as well.

So wrong ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, I can't look away!

What about linux.com?

[Quack1701]

Humm.. I don't seem to recall Linus's lawyers getting in the way of the auction of linux.com for a lot of money. What's the differnce?

And by his own admittion, does this mean they don't have a leg to stand on this time?

quack

If you had ten units of chocolate last week ..

[Anonymous Coward]

and you have five units of chocolate this week, your chocolate units have

a) decreased
b) increased
c) stayed the same

Re:If you had ten units of chocolate last week ..

[Anonymous Coward]

they've clearly increased.

Re:If you had ten units of chocolate last week ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we're not supposed to complain about lack of options but you forgot the obvious and more complete answers:

d) melted
e) been eaten

Re:mylinux.com offtopic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue! Describing this moderation as stupid would be an undeserved compliment. This goes beyond stupid. While reading the article I did a whois on "mylinux.com" then I read all the posts before posting what I got. I'm glad I didn't post this then later see my post moderated as being offtopic, I'd have hit the roof!

But how would we know it was him?

[Paul Crowley]

The name "Linus Torvalds" is taken, and presumably has been for some time (I would have given it to Linus if I'd found otherwise, I swear!). So if he wanted to post as himself, he'd have to write to Rob asking that his name be assigned to him.

If I were Rob, I'd mail those free software luminaries that haven't already posted here with /. passwords reserved for them...
--

Re:But how would we know it was him?

[jovlinger]

yeah, and I want johan back. So maybe we should get the pips (people in power) to put a timeout on uids, so that if noone has used a name for a while (or ever, even) it kinda reverts back to the pool of usable names.

The while would have to be long, tho, to avoid identity confusion.

Lying Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

This message addresses the recent rumors that have been floating around about Linus' lawyers going after domain squatters abusing the Linux Trademark.

Yesterday it was "news". Now it's just a "rumor". I need say no more.

Re:Lying Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everythings a rumor on Slashdot now

Lying Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

This message addresses the recent rumors that have been floating around about Linus' lawyers going after domain squatters abusing the Linux Trademark.

Yesterday i was "news". Now it's just a "rumor". I need say no more.

[OT] 'save keys to open doors' is from Gauntlet!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Atari coin-op from the late 80s!

It was SeriousDomains.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a link to their site. This Indiana-based company seems to attempt to earn a living auctioning off lame domain names, not just Linux but others.

It was mentioned on Linux Today last Friday. The auction was cancelled over the weekend when Linus' lawyers complained. Nobody had bid on a single one as of then. They wanted $5000 apiece for these "assets."

You think the Linux names were bad? Check out some of the others! The auction is on Yahoo and nobody's bidding on these either.

I can see this shlock outfit going under real soon.

Re:It was SeriousDomains.com

[Zalini]

It actually looks like the company is located in Lafayette, IN, near Purdue University. Maybe we should get PLUG (Purdue LUG) to go knock on their door?!

I always knew Indiana was full of idiots.

intellectual property

[MattMann]

IANAL, but if I were Linus I would be a little careful about what I said. As he himself said, intent is important, but perhaps not in the way he meant it.

Intent is important to the law, and to judges who really frown on people pretending to have intent. As an example, you can't sue someone just to test and see whether a law is valid. You must actually have "standing" to sue, as an entity who has actually been affected by a law. For trademarks, much of the purpose and the design of the remedies is to prevent economic harm. If Linus is giving the name away widely, where's the harm in other people using the name? What are the damages?

Trademarks can be legally lost, as he points out, by failure to police them. But for more reasons too, for failure to use them in actual trade, for failure to use them a way that gives them a distinct meaning, etc. I'd recommend that he come up with a meaning, something like "it's for free and open source, and that's ironclad" if that works legally, and I'd recommend that he not say, "I'm only doing this because I have to, I'd really rather give it away" because he might. IANAL, of course.

I wish the FSF and other interested parties would come up with GPL equivalents for other kinds of IP:

• Patents held by the FSF and licensed only to free and open sourcers, or

• Trademarks that are usable only for free and open products

• combinations of IP tied together:

  this copyrighted source code work is free to be copied, but may only be distributed under and free and open trademarks

  You wanna call it Red Hat? OK, but I can call my copy Red Hat too, since that's what you say it's called.

Re:intellectual property

[bero-rh]

You wanna call it Red Hat? OK, but I can call my copy Red Hat too, since that's what you say it's called.

Are you sure that's such a great idea? I do see the reasoning behind it, but I think what it would do primarily is cause confusion.

If we had 10 different distributions called Red Hat Linux 6.1, how would we support them? Install the xyz-3.1-3.i386.rpm update from ftp.redhat.com, no, wait, you're using Red Hat Linux 6.1 as found on geocities.com, you'll need abc-3.0-9.i686.rpm instead... Oops, no, there are actually two different Red Hat Linuxes hosted on geocities.com, you're using the other one, there's no fix available for you, sorry.

And what's worse, Microsoft (or any other company that doesn't like Linux) could just grab some old stuff (kernel 0.99, patched with linux-0.99-bluescreen-every-5-minutes.patch.gz), release it, and then rightfully make a press release saying "Red Hat Linux SUCKS! Windows 98 is more stable by far!"

Is that really what we want?

Re:intellectual property

[MattMann]

Yeah, but...

• I want you to try and play the game, and not say "this game sux" until the game has been explored. The game is, GPLing copyrighted sources makes those sources and derivatives always free to copy and use. Can we do this with names for those sources too? Do we want to? It's the "forking the kernel doesn't work" argument applied to names. Create a new brand name for the same OS? OK, but you have to share the name just like you shared the code.
• 10 different RedHats? No, 10 of the same RedHats. If you own the RedHat trademark, and release a CD with linux on it and call it RedHat 1.0, then I can copy the CD and call it RedHat 1.0 too. It's the same product, it can have the same name [...is my proposal, not the reality]

Re:intellectual property

[Chandon Seldon]

Trademarks make sense. If I make something, and call it "Chandon's Product", I don't want someone named Aym Inept to be able to make something similar and also call it "Chandon's Product", simply because Aym's possible ineptidude would then reflect upon me.

With patents and copyright, it's a whole different story, it's a question of making something that people can see but never change. I don't care if you make something like my "Chandon's Product" and call it "Bob's Product"...

Re:intellectual property

[MattMann]

Well, my initial post did mention patents, didn't it?

With regard to trademarks, I'm not saying anything conflicts with what you said. I'm saying that it's cool that I can copy and redistribute linux and call it linux and since RedHat is based on linux I can copy and redistribute it and I should be able to call that version RedHat too.

But lemme just take the idea back, pearls before swine apparently.

Re: Deploying the Sensors at LinuxOne

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you think sensor technology is beyond Linus? He can deploy his sensors whereever he wants, and in fact, he has! IBM is still trying to find a way to censor his sensor sweeps.

Red elf cuts off TROLLS head

[grumpy_geek]

Trolls are bad M'kay, so don't be a troll
Yes Mister Mackey

Re: Linus lied to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus has been more than aware of Slashdot for some time. In fact, he has participated in a few discussions under AC, and with a special signature. Especially on discussions about CPUs.

What a strange world this is...

[boessu]

Hello all people who'll freak out about Linuses trademark,

I can't believe that there is only one person out there who don't understand the position of Linus with his trademark Linux.
What Linus tells us about the problematic position of a trademark is well known... worldwide.
And Linus is really the best person I can imagine to hold this trademark.

Would you like to see a company like Red Hat as the holder of the trademark Linux??

If Linus wouldn't catch up the name, who knows what would happen with this name today in the general Linux-hype. For me it was a wise decision to save the name as a trademark.

Cheers and peace for the GPL-community...

Boessu

Re: Linus lied to you.

[shitface]

cpu's you say? today is d-day right? the whole world is going to be re-structured from the brillance of crusoe.

American isn't the only English

[evilandi]

TheCarp: Americain Heritage Dictionary
...
"We don't need no thought control" --Pink Floyd

Erm... weren't Pink Floyd British? In which case highly unlikely to approve of your decree that the American Heritage Dictionary set world standards. Talk about thought control.

And your point would have been just that little bit more effective, had you only managed to spell American correctly... or is this one of those words like "colour" that you lot insist on spelling differently?

See the real definitive English dictionary.

Anyone can censor anything provided it is in their power to do so. Public, private, government, corporate, it makes no difference.

Don't lecture me on English. I don't just speak it, I am it.

--

Re:American isn't the only English

[TheCarp]

While I agree with you that the OED is THE
definititve dictionary (I love using it),
I do not have a copy, and the dictionary I did
quote is nicely available for lookups online.

Would my point be more effective is I spelled
American "right"? Maybe. However, I am horrible
at spelling. Sorry, I just don't care enough.

Complaining about spelling is akin, in my book,
to complaining that a car doesn't have a
vanity mirror. Nice to have, but completely
not necissary.

I just use what tools are available to me.
It is much more effective than sitting around
waiting for censor to become the "Word of the
day" at OED.com before I post.

Linus is a great writer.

[Danborg]

Wow. It was great to read such an eloquent passage from Linus himself. It never ceases to amaze me what a great communicator he is. I, for one, am proud to have Linus as "Benevolent Dictator" for Linux.

Re: Linus lied to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

What signature?

My rant on how /.ies view Trademark

[Trunt]

Oh, poor little Linus has to fight for his trademark rights, (notice the timing "don't bug me, I'm busy at Transmeta revealing our big secret which is, that we're big patent bullies). Oh, and eToys and other multinationals can't fight for the same rights that Linus enjoys?

Basically all you Linux kiddies are saying that intellectual property laws should only apply to Linux and the Open Source community, "because that's what you believe in". Otherwise the laws that are there for everyone else with civil rights should not apply! Grow up, look around. The only thing that Linus failed to mention was that you have to register the trademark in every country that you want to use it, like the US, Australia, UK. It costs about 6gs/country. So, someone in lets say.... France, could legally register the TM and have all the rights to use it and enforce it, just like Linus! Ha! Did you know, multimillionare ESR tried to register Open Source as a trademark? Oh but that's OK, cause he's one of us. Imagine your response if Corel tried, ...and they have every right to.

Now you got me started... I can't wait for the day when Linus sues Richard Stallman for his use of GNU/Linux! Whose side will you be on? See you all at the media blitz, three ring circus of hypocrits called Linux World Expo! >:-P I can't wait for the /. $$$$ award going ESR so he can use the money to buy a bozooka!

List of TM's ?

[petchema]

Stupid question, but does someone keep track of free software trademarks, so that they can be easily found and added whenever I mention one of them ?
Is any GNU software trademarked, for example ?

what about LinuxMall.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

linuxmall.com is makeing money out of the linux trademark uh?

Re:what about LinuxMall.com?

[Eric Green]

The trademark is administered by Linux International (thus why you send co-branding fees etc. to LI). WorkGroup Solutions (LinuxMall.com) is a founding member of Linux International. 'Nuff said.

-E

Apples and oranges, Rob

[Scurrilous Knave]

Yes, we have always hated it when people have domain names taken from them. But the reason this is different is not because "it's our beloved Linux trademark."

We hate it when monied corporations bully people who have otherwise legitimate claims on their own domain names. I wouldn't mind if, say, Microsoft went against someone trying to register "microsoft-software.com" just to capitalize on their name. But the recent cases, like eToy, the Gumby kid, Amazon, and so on, were just cases of corporations throwing their weight around because their legal staffs didn't have anything else to occupy their time.

In this case, Joe Opportunist thought he could make a buck off the popularity of the Linux name, and he was quite properly stopped. I would be a bit upset if Linus sicced his lawyers on Mr. J. Howard Linux III, who has had "linux-family.org" registered since 1975 or something. And I don't think Linus would do that.

Love is not the issue here--opportunism is. To draw a parallel between this case and other recent domain disputes presented here on Slashdot is to err.

Re:Apples and oranges, Rob

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what you would like to believe, you damn ingsoc. what is this? newspeak?

We hate it when monied corporations bully people who have otherwise legitimate claims on their own domain names.

those "monied corporations" have just as much right to protect their registered property as anyone. how many people would be out of work if that company didn't protect its rights?

were just cases of corporations throwing their weight around because their legal staffs didn't have anything else to occupy their time.

that's absolute nonsense. the real world doesn't operate that way. these business believed they had a valid complaint. it's up to the courts to decide if they were right. first you talk about the "monied corporations" then you go on to talk about how they just throw their money away because they're bored? bahhh!

In this case, Joe Opportunist thought he could make a buck off the popularity of the Linux name, and he was quite properly stopped.

here i agree with you.

I would be a bit upset if Linus sicced his lawyers on Mr. J. Howard Linux III, who has had "linux-family.org" registered since 1975 or something. And I don't think Linus would do that.

i have faith in linus' integrity too. however, be careful of big-brother worship... brother.

Love is not the issue here--opportunism is.

love is all you need.

To draw a parallel between this case and other recent domain disputes presented here on Slashdot is to err.

no.

Buncha clowns..

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother used to have a roommate in college that encountered a trademark-related confrontation. He registered bozos.com to display his MacOS parody (BozOS, the little "mac guy" logo is a clown, instead.. big deal.) Anyway, he was eventually contacted by the lawyer of Bozo The Clown himself (old as he is) about his infringement on the Bozo trademark. Apparently, Bozo felt offended by the humorous manor of the site (ironic.) I think there is a link on that page to a New York Times article on the whole story.

cheers

-- bart

Re:I knew the bride...

[SLOfuse]

At least you understood what I was talking about, unlike the a** who moderated me off-topic.

I've been using and advocating Linux for 5 years. I just hate being looked at as a "late-comer" just because I started my business last year. And I really do agree with you and Linus. It's just no fun thinking I have to defend myself.

lynux.com WARNING: JavaScript Blackhole

[jra]

Don't Go Here.

Cheers,
-- jra
-----

Bogosity versus fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

LinuxOne is simply bogus. They sell a really crappy product, and have no real prospects, but they actually do comply with the GPL (barely) and they actually do sell Linux.

Even bogus people have the right to exist and push their bogus products and memes. Remember there are still more people in the computing world that think Free Software is bogus than people who embrace it.

So yeah, let's diss LinuxOne, short their bogus stock, boycott their bogus products, but they haven't done anything to deserve legal action.

OK, now what about LinuxOne?

[YuppieScum]

Can (or should) Linus now piss all over this scam IPO by withholding permission to use the Linux(TM) trademark in their name?

Re:OK, now what about LinuxOne?

[Silver A]

Can (or should) Linus now piss all over this scam IPO by withholding permission to use the Linux(TM) trademark in their name?

Can he? Linus probably can't prevent Dr. Chiou from calling his distrubutions "LinuxWhatever", as long as it is Linux. He'd have had to enforce it against Red Hat and Yggdrasil, etc., to have any claim on those grounds. However, there may be a case to prevent use of "LinuxOne" as a corporate name. RedHat, SuSE, etc, don't have Linux in their corporate name. VA Linux does, but they go permission first. LinuxOne does not appear to have, and I don't see the "Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" on the LinuxOne website.

Should he? If he has legal ground to stand on, yes. A scammer like Dr. Chiou deserves what he gets, including (hopefully) a loudly publicized lawsuit the day before the IPO.

Re:Trademark law

[LordofWinterfell]

I'm not sure what linux means to you, but it is a OS developed by Linus. If he wants to defend the trademark (by the way, which _is_ his, not "the worlds") then he should do so as he sees fit, political agenda or no. It is not up to you or anyone else to decide that he should not defend it. If he wanted to, he could tell you all to go to hell and name your distros somthing else than linux. But he isn't - and that is what makes it different. If M$ went open, do you think that they will allow people to call it "Red Hat Windows" or whatever? No Way. Linus just dosn't want it to be used to their own gain, without benefiting the Open Source crowd.

Mr. Torvalds as an example...

[BlackHawk]

This is going to sound hopelessly sycophantic, and for that I apologize.

To Linus Torvalds: Thank you, for spending the time to inform us as to the reasons for your recent actions, and for detailing the intricacies of your position as a trademark owner. Frankly, I had no idea that you would be required to go to such lengths; I had naively assumed that once you'd registered "Linux", it was done!

Second, it is my opinion that Linus' behavior here should be seen as an example to emulate. Rather than whine about the difficulties involved in enforcing his trademark, or blasting the people who expressed dismay at "lawyer-tactics" being used in Linux's name, he very clearly and politely explained himself, clarified the groundrules regarding the use of "Linux" in a URL, and even explained why he was using the term "nominal fee" (an expression I hate as much as he apparently does). I think we should be pleased that he chose to react in this manner, and resolve to behave likewise when confronted by disapproval and disagreement.

Don't moderate my sig

[SLOfuse]

Hey idiot moderator!. The sig is that thing at the bottom. Now THIS is offtopic. You may justifiably moderate it so.

SeriousDomains still owns the names.

[Foochar]

The way that the announcement on SeriousDomains reads to me they still own the domains. However in order to sell them, the person they are selling them to must be aproved and licensed by Torvalds.

The way it looks to me all that Torvalds can do is restrict the use of those domain names. SeriousDomains still owns them, but because they don't have a license to use the trademark they can't put a site up etc. using them. It makes little to no sense for a company to buy a domain name that they may or many not be able to use, and if SeriousDomains had implied that the purchaser would not have had to jump through some more hoops before actually using the domain names they would have been misrepresenting their product.

Heres an analogy for you: This guy I know owns a good sized farm. He decides he wants to auction it off to housing developers and make some money. He imples that there aren't any "special" restrictions on the land and that the developers won't have to apply for an permits above and beyond the usual. In reality this land has been placed into an "agricultural trust" that prohibts development. If the farmer dosen't share this fact he is misrepresenting what he is selling. If the developers find this out, not a one of them is going to want to buy the land, because they can't use it, so the farmer decides to pull the plug on the auction.

Now say one of the developers has an idea for some sort of "hybrid" development, say it chops the farm up into small plots for gentlemen farmers. He goes down to the courthouse, gets aproval, and then can approach the farmer about buying the land.

The way the thing on SeriousDomains reads to me they can still sell the domains, but you have to get a license first, probably in large part due to the fact that without a license the domains aren't worth the $35 a year a costs to maintain them. If some company is going to be doing genuine linux work, they can go and get a licnese from Torvalds, at nominal cost, and then aproach SeriousDomains and negoiate a price. The name is now much more valuable, because the buyer will actually be able to use it.

Common sense and guardianship.

[malkavian]

As far as I can see, this is no frivolous move on the part of Linus. I'd like to add my support 100%.
Several people seem to have mentioned the word "hypocrisy", as in the past, Slashdot readership has derided trademark enforcement for frivolous reasons (Etoys/Etoy for example).
The world is not a clearly defined place, so a good deal of common sense is required to come up with a reasonable solution to each case. for example, Linus guarding the trademark against all comers with a team of rabid lawyers wouold be to the detriment of almost all the Linux community. I find myself wondering how long Linux would survive in that environment, and the phrase "Not long" springs to mind.
However, simply casting the association of the word "Linux" to the winds is also a bad move. Where you hear the word "Linux", you're pretty much guaranteed it's something that does, indeed, relate to Linux (even names such as Linuxsucks etc. wouldn't be jumped on, I'd assume, as it defines the name Linux, so you know it's about linux, and sucks, so you know it's a place where people who don't like linux gather. It's what it says, and you'd know what to expect by going there).
However, how long do you think it'd take for sites such as "Linuxmatter" (don't know if that's out there) or other namesl that random browsers may enter to hunt for Linux resources to be snapped up by sites (porn probably) with nothing to do with linux, simply for the extra hits? Denying future valid projects from occurring.
I don't believe this is anything to do with political agendas, or any other such fripperies. It's just a move by Linus to make sure that everyone can continue to be a community as easily as possible. This kind of move is more along the lines of a good neighbour house sitting on your behalf than it is someone enforcing a house arrest.
I say three cheers for common sense, and I'm glad that some of the big names out there have it.
I for one am glad to see it whenever possible.

Malk.

P.S. The day I don't agree that Linus, or anyone, operates in the best interest of the world at large, I'll be just as vocal about it.

Trademark administered by Linux International

[Eric Green]

Note that Linus is letting Linux International administer the trademark (thus the part about "the fees go to Linux International"). VA Research was a founding member of Linux International. 'Nuff said.

-E

Re:Trademark administered by Linux International

[jquiroga]

Yes, and LI website tells me Larry M. Augustine is in the Board of Directors, from a company called 'VA Research'

Gasp! 'Nuff said, indeed.

I bet Linus owns microsoftsucks.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus, you blew it.

Fraudulent behavior and LinuxOne

[Eric Green]

An "attempt to defraud" is needed in order to invoke the cybersquatting laws. Unfortunately, proving that in the case of LinuxOne is a bit difficult, because they do have a Linux product to sell (albeit that it's a repackaged version of someone else's product!).

I do notice, from the trademark database, that LinuxOne has not filed for a trademark on their name or on their product's name. In other words, they have no legitimate basis for using said name. I wonder if their IPO filing mentions that anywhere? If not, the SEC can whack them down for fraudulent filing! (the SEC doesn't need a court case to cancel an IPO, they have the authority to do it in and of themselves).

-E

Re:Fraudulent behavior and LinuxOne

[um... Lucas]

A company does not need to trademark their name in order to go public. Where did you think up that little rule? What you could do is go trademark LinuxOne for yourself, but guess what? LinuxOne could sue you and take the trademark from you, because they can obviously show prior use.

Come one guys. You don't like Linux One. They seem a little bit shady. So don't support them. But don't actively go trying to destroy the company. That's just immature, and with all the speculation that gets posted here, could almost be considered libelous.

Everyone deserves a fair shot. You may not agree with them. You may not like them. Blah blah blah. The bottom line is that maybe they will make good on their goals of becoming a real Linux company.

Remember when they said Linux CANNOT be a TM?

[Anonymous Coward]

When that jerk announced his trademark ownership on Linux, everyone (?) was saying "that can't be a trademark - it's been in common non-trademark use (covering the same subject) for years". Then, as soon as our benevolent dictator "bought" the TM by paying off that jerk, people started changing thier tunes.

Linus says he doesn't want to dictate the use of the mark but just wants to protect it. That's classic double-talk. If Linus is going to leave the programming world to play with the lawyers, he should spend some time trying to get a consistent philosophy in his mind.

Re:Trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be such a terrible thing? I don't particularly care if the word Linux serves any particular body of people's political agenda.

I do. I would hate to see Linux become to the computer world what Long Distance Deals have become to the telecommunications industry.

When I hear the phrase "Great Long Distance" I set my heals, and if I hear "rates!" I start running away as fast as I can.

Linus wants to prevent Linux from becomming something like that. To me, that's a good thing. If you wish to regard that as a political agenda, then I pity your narrow view.

Linux International

[Eric Green]

This is sort of what Linux International was set up to do. As far as I know, Linus has assigned the administration of the trademark to LI, with the mission being to protect the value of the Linux name for LI's members and the Linux community as a whole.

Having LI administer the trademark isn't perfect. LI's charter states that LI's mission is to benefit its member companies, and LI was originally created in order to do the Linux Pavilion at Comdex, rather than as a generic Linux oversight group. Still, it can be argued that fostering a strong Linux community is in the best interests of LI's member companies.

-E

Way to go Linus!!!

[RedInk]

I have had two nightmare senarios in my mind of late and only trademark protection can prevent them.

First, imagine some company hostile to Linux, like Microsoft decides to take on a bunch of domain names. Like LinuxSupport.com, LinuxQuestions.com, LinuxHelp.com. Then every one of these sites simple redirects to the Microsoft pages instructing people how to remove Linux and install Windows 2000. Or, worse they could have a bunch of semi-informative, FUD enriched site that tried to pass itself off as a "REAL" Linux site.

Second is Microsoft releasing "Standard Linux" their own distribution that would be very easy to install. But rather than being real Linux, it is NT with a posix shell, and the primary UI is bash.

Imagine trying to explain to people that "Standard Linux" really isn't Linux at all and they really need to get anything kind of Linux but "Standard Linux." Does this sound confusing. Of course Microsoft would market the thing enough that it would cause confusion.

It should be obvious that these would cause major problems for Linux. The only way to prevent such abuses is for Linux to be an aggressively protected trademark.

Good Going Linus! Give 'em HELL!

Re:Way to go Linus!!!

[Robert S Gormley]

First, imagine some company hostile to Linux, like Microsoft decides to take on a bunch of domain names. Like LinuxSupport.com, LinuxQuestions.com, LinuxHelp.com. Then every one of these sites simple redirects to the Microsoft pages instructing people how to remove Linux and install Windows 2000. Or, worse they could have a bunch of semi-informative, FUD enriched site that tried to pass itself off as a "REAL" Linux site.

Kinda like http://www.microsoftsucks.com which links to linux.org?

You know what is really sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that linux has to act a lawyer. That because of all the aholes instead of being what we all want to be (geeks) he has to play around with the lawyer crap. Well whatever helps our beloved bird is fine with me :)

OT: thanks!

[Kool Moe]

Dude, just gotta thank ya for the Marksonline link. Kickass! Been wondering if something like that existed (though more for domain searches-as it does as well). Never motivated on my own web search though.
Anyway, way cool site- thanks for sharing.

Oh and ya, Linus is right, money sucks, long live the OSS, and jive with the honky momma whenever you get the chance...

Excuse me while I do this awful thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The think I hate is when people use words they hate and do things they say they hate to do, while in the same breath they say they hate to say or do it or even ask to be excused for saying or doing it.

I say there's no excuse for such behavior and I won't appologize for calling them jerks or worse. Of course, I've found that people who sugar-coat their jerkiness like that don't like being around people who don't let them get away with it. And in person, you usually can't do it anonymously.

Tricky

[Esperandi]

Linus is getting tricky... he must know that his trademark doesn't extend to anything except to the names of computer operating systems. He is legally bound to uphold THAT trademark, but when he goes and tries to "uphold his trademark" in things like domain names and such, he's simply going outside the law.

Esperandi

A real class act

[Francisco d'Aconia]

After reading so many mixed opinions of Mr. Torvalds, but withholding judgement myself until I had any direct evidence, I'm pleased to find that he is a real class act.

Hopefully this sort of disposition will be successful and re-introduce common sense and decency back into American culture.

---------
Once in a while you get shown the light,

Re:Trademarks

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? You can moderate these comments down to -500 for all I care. Why? Because I still couln't give a fucking flying shit, asshole.

Re:GLZt

[Anonymous Coward]

I freakin agree! What the fucking shit has this freaking story got to do with Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows95, Windows NT3, Windows NT4, Windows 98, Windows 2000, BSD, UnixWare, SCO Openserver, Solaris, SunOS, Irix, RiscOS, GEM, BBC0S1.2, AmigaTOS or the price of fucking seaweed in fucking Bangkok?

Absolutely fucking nothing. No-freaking-thing. So why the shit was your fucking stupid as shit-assed-fuck-faced-big-sideburns-weed-smoking comment moderated down?

It should have been focking moderated facking-well up. Get a clue!

"Perl" is not trademarked by Larry Wall

[Zach Frey]

I notice that www.perlprogrammer.com is also 'squatted'. I don't hear Larry Wall getting the lawyers in.

"Perl" is not trademarked by Larry Wall. "Linux" is trademarked by Linux Torvalds.

Therefore, Linus has both legal standing and a legal obligation to defend the Linux(TM) trademark. Larry does not, in the case of Perl (no (TM)).

Metamoderate!

[PapaZit]

Attacking the moderators as a group will never get you very far. The moderators are pulled from the general slashdot readership. Like the readers and posters, some of them are really good, and others are total idiots.

That's what the meta-moderation is for. Go there often, and weed out the idiots. It works.

I'll confess that I'd like to see a different system, but I don't have any better ideas. Selecting meta-moderators the same way that moderators are selected is getting into a recursive trap of silliness.

Bare-assed cheek!

[ralphclark]

there is a rather nominal fee(*)

Damn, he's mooning at us again. Cut it out, Torvalds!

Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction

and when linus dies? this is just like DNS. bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

concentrating authority is going to cause problems. some small person gets to decide who can use 'linux' and who cant. thus all the problems of monarchy/autocracy are going to follow such as abuse of that power (network solutions, etc) no matter how nice and sweet and fluffy and 'uber cool' the person or group is and besides, even if they are perfect, their successors will not be i guarantee it. you are all a bunch of fucking idiots and need to read some fucking history books instead of masturbating to technology all day long.

Let's Wait And See

[SeriousDomains]

Yes, I'm the one who posted an auction for the Pick of Linux domain names, forcing me unwittingly into the crosshairs of a lot of critical issues for the Linux community. Since fear and overreaction seem to be the natural response to the unknown, here are some facts.

I have been a member of the Linux user community for years. That does not put me up in the ranks with most of you, who are much admired developers, but I'm still a great fan, albeit a quiet one.

I have a consultancy that is 14 years old, and have been a multimedia developer and corporate consultant for 20 years in helping clients leverage technology (all and any technologies, including Linux), to improve performance. That includes infrastructures, testing, certification, design, development, consulting, training, benchmarking and many others... which are only mentioned here in case anybody remembers the Linux names on the original list, which reflect these specific segments of the service sector.

I am one of the little guys. Even though my consultancy has included work for ADP, TRW, AT&T, Eli Lilly, Cummins, USAir, NCR, Sprint and many, many others, 1) we are small, 2) we get our work from word of mouth, 3) we don't do the tradeshow circuit. That means that even though we've won multiple national and international awards in cutting edge design and development, there are "in-between" times on our projects. Any undercapitalized consultancy that doesn't admit that is extremely lucky/blessed or in denial.

I want to grow my consultancy, but I don't want to go the investor route (with it) that so many have done lately. If we had a lot of products, instead of mostly being a service consultancy, we could just sell off inventory, but that is not the case. My only other way I have to raise capital is to sell assets. That's how I got into buying and selling domain names. *If* I can sell some assets, I can expand my consultancy in areas that include additional Linux services.

I am not a cybersquatter. Cybersquatting is reprehensible. A cybersquatter is somebody who deliberately goes out and purchases a domain name that is the name of another organization or person, and then turns around and holds the company up for ransom, to get back the name that rightfully belongs to them. The current cybersquatting law is perhaps too far reaching, rushed through Congress on the heels of heavy lobbying $$$ by specific large concerns. All the overstepping will eventually, hopefully, be sifted down to the essence of cybersquatting as stated above.

I do buy and sell domain real estate. I know many here will disagree with this, but in my view, there is no more wrong with that than with somebody who sees certain growth trends in their town, and buys a piece of property ahead of time, where the investor predicts growth will be. It's no different than buying and selling stock. It's all the same: See growth patterns and trends, and invest accordingly. It's available to all, as it should be in a free market society. and does not need to be resented by those who choose not to invest, but human nature being what is, naturally will be criticized by a handful -- just as a handful of people criticize farmers who buy additional acreage or property developers who buy outlying areas in their own towns.

Purchasers of real estate property have to comply with building codes, easements, and community covenants when they decide to build or improve their property. Likewise, a purchaser of domain real estate will naturally have to comply with the building codes, easements, community covenants (and licenses) of the location which they purchase as they begin to develop the site.

Sellers of real estate property, (and by extension, domain name property), should not be restricted from advertising the property for sale, nor from selling the property, just because those who purchase the property must ultimately comply with the said building codes, easements, covenants, etc. There are laws on the books in America against such exclusionary and restrictive practices. Regarding what went down on the auction, I was closing up my computer Saturday night... actually early Sunday morning when I got an email accusing me of cybersquatting and threatening me with litigation that could result in "possible statutory damage award against you in the millions of dollars, together with substantial legal fees. Anyone who purchases the names from you could also be subject to suit, " and saying I was to cease and desist my auction, and "Should you persist in this course of action it will unquestionably result in litigation. Do not ignore this letter."

Isn't that a nice way to start a dialogue with somebody? This was the first contact I'd had from anybody, and came directly from the attorney, and was courtesy copied Linus Torvalds at transmeta.com, Jon "Maddog" Hall at valinux.com and Dan York at linuxcare.com. I knew VALinux from the recent IPO press, but had never heard of LinuxCare.com, and wasn't sure what either of them had to do with such a letter. When I went to LinuxCare.com I noticed that their business is pursuing mostly Linux services including terms like infrastructure, facilitators, consulting, benchmarking, innovation and others that are in my list of domain names that were involved in the auction. (Later the attorney explained that one of those individuals had contacted him to take care of [me], and that both have a dual role in Linux International -- where now I see the welcome letter from Dan says "Linux International is a non-profit association of groups, corporations and others that work towards the promotion of and helping direct the growth of the Linux operating system and the Linux community. Welcome to the website and to the Linux revolution!" If I were less of a keep-my-head-down-and-just-do-my-work type person, I would have know that, but I didn't.) In any case, having duly received my most warm welcome into the Linux community (having been in it silently for years) I closed up shop as I try to do on every Sunday, knowing that I couldn't even talk to the auction people until Monday.

On Monday (as I first got into work, mind you) I got a second email saying that "unless this auction is stopped immediately by Noon PST, we have been instructed to file suit under the Cybersquatting Act on Monday afternoon. We will hold you and any buyers liable for any violation of the trademark and unfair competition laws applicable." I called the auction people and pulled the webmaster out of a meeting to stop the auction. I removed my auction out of respect for Mr. Torvalds; the last thing a guy needs when he's trying to launch a product is a mess in the wings like this.

Later on that afternoon, I got a call from the attorney, and being on another call couldn't take it. He informed the person that took the call that unless I called him by the end of the day, he was going to file a federal law suit in the morning. So when I called him, he said that I had to remove the auction (which I kept insisting that I already had), and then I finally figured out that he didn't want to just stop the auction, but he wanted all mention of Linux off my site, and the complete list off the site. When I explained that I would have to post some kind of explanation (so I could let people know what happened to the auction, and to alert people to the Trademark/license requirement), we finally got to the point that I could actually leave the word Linux and the link on my site, and therefore you see the result with my statement.

I also asked him that in the event that the buyer understood that there were licensing arrangements to make with Linus Torvalds, would that be okay? He said that it was okay to sell the domain names, assuming the license could be approved, but I couldn't advertise them. (Huh?) I decided to let that go for now, too.

I tried also to address an interest in getting licenses for my names, to discuss later in the week after the Transmeta thing was launched, and thought the door was open to that, but in a subsequent transmittal (yes, yet another) from the attorney that afternoon, it included this statement: "We would also strongly suggest you consider deleting the Linux domain names you have as many of them will never be approved for licensing since they suggest ownership of the mark. "

For the record, I don't believe I was cybersquatting. I don't believe that selling a domain name dilutes the mark. I don't believe that the first inkling you get of a problem should be to threaten anything. (How about: Were you aware that you need to cite Linus Torvalds as the trademark owner of Linux? You also need to let your buyers know that they need to secure a license from Linust Torvalds.) I don't believe I should be accused of unfair competition (although the reverse actually comes to mind). I don't believe that it is appropriate to single me out, when there is plenty of precedent of other Linux derivative.com's out there. And I don't believe that any of my domain names suggest ownership of the mark.

I do believe that I owe Linus Torvalds an apology, which I have extended to him by private email, and do so here also publicly, for not realizing that Linux was trademarked. I was so used to the open source concept, and was so used to other Linux{this}.com sites and [that]Linux.com sites that it absolutely never occured to me that there were any restrictions at all.

I do also believe that Mr. Torvalds needs to protect his trademark by having licensing arrangements with domain sites and businesses, or his trademark will be diluted. I don't think licenses should be carte blanche, but I don't think it should be so restrictive, either. It's not my decision, but that's my opinion, which I think is more consistent with the culture and groundwork in the Linux community.

For example, I don't believe restricting LinuxExpert.com which he has apparently done, is in the spirit of Linux either. LinuxExpert.com does no more dilution of the mark than LinuxCare.com or a host of others. Neither does it suggest ownership of the mark. Neither one says we are the only guys out here, and neither presumes success, in any event. I can have a DonutExpert shop on one corner, and have a DonutPro shop on the opposite corner, and we'll still get along as friendly competitors, with a different way of doing business, and different things to offer. We can even have TheWorld'sGreatestDonuts on the third corner, and TheOnlyDonutsInTown on the fourth corner, and there's no damage to the name Donut or to the Donut community. And we can also have Ma's Donuts three streets down from the big events who will still eat all of our lunches, because she has a better donut, that people come from miles around for. (I'm not saying us, I'm saying in this hypothetical scenario.) Basically, it seems bogus to get so hyped up about a few great names. Either you think they're great names or you don't, to each his own. But to allow some names and not others, because they're too good or too broad or whatever seems shaky ground.

I don't believe in my wildest imagination or worst Linux-goes-Microsoft nightmare, given his open source approach and tremendous contributions to the very existence of this phenomenon, that Linus Torvalds would have been supportive of the style of his attorney's approach to me, nor in his far reaching (IMO overreaching) claims or demands.

Bottom line is that we can figure everything out in the weeks to come, when he has time to talk.

Tasha

P.S. To the cacklers in the wings, Entrapreneur is a word left over from the 80's that meant, at the time, entrepreneurs working inside a corporation, i.e. internal innovators. It has fallen into disuse because of the obvious confusion with entrepreneur. Nevertheless, I do make typos occasionally --- and mistakes. (See above) :o)

Re:Let's Wait And See

[frost22]

Well.

You are not a cybersquatter. You "buy and sell domain real estate"

What a pile of hogwash. Lou are a liar. Maybe you lie to yourself as well, but it's a lie nonetheless.

There is no such thing as 'domain real estate'. By registering domain names which you do'nt want to use in your own business, you deny others who have a use for it access to them. You extort money from them.

The real question is if your activities add any value to anything, for which you might reasonably expect payment.

There is none. You simply leech money from your victims. A domain has not gotten a single bit 'better' just because it went through your hands and miraculously went from $100 to $10k. You don't create value, you just try to profit from other people's hard work.

Your only excuse is that everybody else does it as well. Yawn.

Get lost and die. (and, yes, Jon K., that suggestion is quite justified in this case).

f.

Re:Trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

I have moderator access, and I went to moderate this post, but I discovered the pulldown thingie doesn't have "idiot didn't read the article" as an option. Geez...and you didn't even have to go to another page!

Linuxbabes.com

[kasparov]

I wonder if Linus is going to go after linuxbabes.com They have the domain, but no page... same with linuxbabe.com If this isn't cybersquatting I don't know what is! (linuxsex.com is still available though...)

"There are aspects of my celebrity that I don't like, but it would be hypocritical to complain. Generally I can forget about it by going off to think in 11 dimensions."
--Stephen Hawking

CENSOR this.

[kir]

What is becoming of slashdot? Does the use of the word censor REALLY cause heartache in this many people? So what if it was not used correctly (which I'm not even sure of). The guy was just trying to make a point. This entire thread was supposed to be about Linus' trademark of Linux anyway, but it has instead turned into (yet again) a stinking pool of "Look at me dad. Look what I can do."

This article really grabbed my interest. I was hoping to see some intelligent comments on a topic I really do not know too much about. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Maybe next time (or maybe not :-( ).

Actually, you can teach a donkey how to sing, but he will still sound like an ass...

--
Kir

Nice formatting

[bobalu]

Guess they must've been in a real hurry to post this one....

other mark in yours

[bobalu]

Well then you're gonna be upset - they took 250 domains away from the guys who were auctioning them. They lost $17,500 on their gamble. How it works is you can't use someone else's mark as part of yours. CompaqService.com will get you sued by Compaq. So he has to police "LinuxHelp.com" etc.

Apparently Linux is a little more practical than some of the "all IP is immoral" crowd.

Other trademarks with "Linux" in the name.

[hangdog]

Got this from trademarks.uspto.gov.

1. 1916230 -- LINUX
2. 75-780385 -- PEN LINUX
3. 75-775058 -- E/LINUX
4. 75-769978 -- LINUX CLINICS
5. 75-760514 -- LETSGOLINUX
6. 75-750440 -- RTLINUX
7. 75-750433 -- "BEST IN LINUX SYSTEMS"
8. 75-750147 -- REALTIME LINUX OPERATING SYSTEM
9. 75-735641 -- LINUX
10.75-735625 -- WE PUT THE X IN LINUX
11.75-735418 -- LINUX GADGETS
12.75-735313 -- LEADING THE WAY TO LINUX
13.75-727469 -- LINUX WAREHOUSE
14.75-715213 -- THE LINUX SHOW
15.75-710491 -- SAIR LINUX AND GNU CERTIFICATION
16.75-702822 -- LINUX WEARABLE
17.75-695940 -- ENTERPRISE LINUX
18.75-681910 -- LINUX START START WITH US FOR FOR ALL YOUR LINUX NEEDS
19. 75-678044 -- LINUXWORLD CONFERENCE & EXPO
20. 75-675176 -- LINUXOUTLET.COM
21. 75-638274 -- LINUX LAPTOPS
22. 75-637347 -- LINUX FOR BUSINESS
23. 75-629587 -- LINUX WEEK
24. 75-609600 -- PUTTING LINUX TO WORK FOR YOU
25. 75-598476 -- LINUX HARDWARE SOLUTIONS
26. 75-593358 -- LINUXWIRE

yes...

[The Queen]

...only I'm a SHE, not a HE. :-)

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Linus Explains Linux Trademark Issues

[rlb]

Our site linuxsoft.net ran from April of last year until early summer when cash became tight. During that time we interviewed Richard Stallman, provided a small business take on Linux in our editorial content and handed our tech gear. The current trademark issue is of interest since it appears that business entities offering similar services have power over who else gets a trademark in the Linux community. We are re-launching the site in early February now that funding is no longer an issue, with continued specialization in small/minority business issues in Open Source. I support Linus Torvald's right to determine how trademarks involving his creation are used, but I'd like to know that any decisions over trademark use get made by independent committee. rlb

"Linus, I AM your father!"

[gad_zuki!]

As Linux goes from a hobby to Business (which it already has) you do need to be concerned about names and labels.

Man, that's exactly the point. Linux* is what is because there are programmers who put their own time and effort into it, for free. This collective effort has now become the IP of those with laywers-on-a-leash, like Linus.

The bigger companies and egos get, the more their politics will become just like Microsoft's. We can wrangle with the right vs. wrong trademark practices all day, but there are going to be people who feel, rightly so, jipped from the commercialization of Linux. They may go back to baking cookies and sailing, its their peragotive. Maybe Linux* has become something this just isn't for them anymore.

Personally, I do see Linux* quickly becoming the toy of millionare wanna-bes and their economic games. I also completely endorse cyber-squatting in all its forms. You can lift your jaw now. The only reason this has become such a thorny issue is because deep-pockets gave in to spending outrageous fortunes for that 'right' domain name or were too impatient to let the legal system sort out trademark issues and created this insane market.


Is Linus and Linux* a victim of the deep-pockets and their politics? Maybe so, but the only way to keep up with them is to act just like them. On the bright side this is only one step towards the dark side...

*This is a trademark if I'm poor and have a chance of making money off of it in ways Linus doesn't approve of.

Re:"Linus, I AM your father!"

[notsoanonymouscoward]

It seems that people in growing numbers are idolizing this dude from Finland who had this cool idea. Stop. Thats dumb. Sure, say his idea is neat or say you're impressed by what he has helped accomplish with the help of many talented people. Sure be glad you don't have to use Winblows.
But I worry when people start tying someone like Linus (remember the global domination thing?) to their ideals and using him as their representative (people have very different views of what OSS is and what it should be). Then we get all sorts of people who stop thinking whenever someone says bad things about linus or linux, and start saying dumb $h!t. After all, when everything is said and done, he's just some guy from Finland who had a cool idea.

This post will of course be moderated down. It is after all Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, and Offensive. :)

Disclaimer:
Yes I know, not everyone posts dumb shit...
I reserve the right to have bad spelling
I set my threshold at -1
I do not support anonymous posting.
I do not support the use of hot grits for anything other than nourishment.
Basically I reserve the right to do whatever pisses you off. Just cause I can.

Pursuing trademark misuse can be embarrassing...

[arachno]

Virgin threatened to sue some Welsh plumber who named his business after himself, Roger Virgin...full story here.

Anyone know what happened in this case?

Can LinuxOne's IPO be stopped?

[Deven]

Stopping the auctioning of Linux domain names is good, but stopping LinuxOne's IPO would be even better. LinuxOne is a blatent scam, designed to bilk lazy investors out of millions of dollars.

Investors who do their homework will know not to invest in LinuxOne's IPO, but someone is bound to fall for it, and if they do, they will be badly burned by it. This scam can't be good for the reuptation of Linux in general, despite the lack of respect LinuxOne has in the community.

If Linus refuses permission for LinuxOne to use the Linux trademark, can't that be used to stop to IPO, or at least to force them to use a different name and a ticker symbol other than "LINX"?

Stopping LinuxOne's scam would be a true public service...

The old story 'bout power and corruption?

[guran]

Linux is growing into the world of Big Companies now. That is a dirty world. Don't expect anybody to survive there without getting his/her hand a wee bit dirty.

I remember a time when Bill Gates was looked upon as a geek hero who dared to pick a fight with big bad IBM.

Hold it flamers! I'm not implying that Linus is the next Gates (though I have nothing against Bill personally. I don't know him after all)
I'm just saying that saints don't survive in that world. Linus has made a great job. Don't expect him to be a saint. A "good guy" up there is quite enough.

mylinux.com

[Frodo]

Domain Name: MYLINUX.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: No nameserver
Updated Date: 11-may-1999

Can I cry "squatters! squatters!" already? Especially seeing "No nameserver" part?

Shouting... or not listening in the first place

[SeriousDomains]

>If Linus loses control of the trademark, it doesnt mean that it will be uncontrolled. It probably would just mean that it was controlled by the people with the biggest marketing budgets who could shout down the other people in the conversation. I believe that he needs to protect his trademark too, but not the way it was done. I don't think he would have supported what happened either. If you have an open mind and want to know What really happened try this link.

Independent Committee unlikely Part 1 of 3

[SeriousDomains]

You comment: "... but I'd like to know that any decisions over trademark use get made by independent committee."

I'm not sure that's in Mr. Torvalds best interest, and even if he thought it was, I'm not sure that it is possible to have an independent committee, anymore. People have to make a living, and in their workday they will be involved with companies that have a stake in things going one way or another. Not to say that people can't be objective, but we're all human. There are clearly a lot of power shifts going on, and a lot of shifting influences, with a lot at stake. There also seems to be a naivete or unwillingness to look at things with the same independent thought we used to see here.

For example, it is clear that some people view any purchase of domain names whatsoever, for purposes other than building a single site, to be unacceptable. Other people believe that it is okay to see trends and buy and sell domain names like any other assets. It's okay to agree to disagree. But does a philosophical difference, or should a philosophical difference prevent the use and development and sale of those names for Linux businesses? I don't think so.

In the trademark situation, the fundamental issue should be whether or not a name or a site using that name (porn, Microsoft lovefest, etc.) violates or denigrates the mark. A name which has in no way done either, should not be dismissed, nor should it be removed from the market by all intents and purposes, because you're worried it might be misused, or because you don't like the person (or assume you won't like the person, since you don't know the person), in my example. I have no doubt that LinuxStinks.com would have been allowed to continue to exist.

So what is the difference? The difference is that I was an unknown, and suspect because I was unknown. In our self-righteous rantings about other things and other sectors here, we call that bigotry.

Part 1 of 3

The Stranger and the Gold fields Part 2 of 3

[SeriousDomains]

So, you can all take pot shots because I'm calling this a gold field, and I'm just a gold digger you people who don't know me, say. Whatever you want to think. Here goes anyway.

Suppose that Somebody is in charge of the GoldPan, a phenomenally successful way to extract gold from them thar hills. Suppose Somebody lets all their friends and even lots of strangers try their hand at using the GoldPan and even shows them great ways to use it. Several people create neat little accessories that make it even more efficient. Everybody gets very excited about the GoldPan and all the opportunities on the them thar hills. Then, one day, on the new ship in from Afar, Stranger arrives and buys a vein that Everybody had ignored until then, and sets up several camps along the vein and says "All welcome. Come and try your hand at my vein. Use this neat GoldPan that everybody's using. But nobody's ever used it on this vein. Everybody seemed disinterested in this vein, but I think this vein holds great promise. But I'm not going to hog it all to myself. Come buy your stake."

Now does that threaten the quality of the Goldpan? No. Does it irritate Everybody who's been working different veins with the GoldPan? Some, naturally. Is it worse because the Stranger's from Afar? Is it because we're shocked that we've made open invitations to come join us in these hills, but we deep down thought nobody else would come? Or is it because we thought they would come ask permission to buy that valley before they bought their stake, because certainly nobody else would have run down and tried to stake the same claim, if they thought it might disappear. Or is it because it is really not worth anything, and we should save this guy from Afar from his own stupidity. Or is it just plain and simple we don't think anybody from Afar should have such a big stake in one vein, even if we didn't pay any attention to it before and even if they did put up the money for it. Is it because we didn't want it in the first place, and took no measures to purchase it, but now that somebody owns it, it irritates us that he wants to offer parts of it for sale? Maybe yes, yes and yes. But is it wrong? Some say yes, some say no. Should the guy be run out of town on a rail? That's what was done in the Old West... or maybe found slashed in a dark alley.

Is one of the big threats that somebody might actually see value in one of those camps on that vein and spend money on it? Or is it that it was almost free for the taking only a little while ago, but now this guys got it and I wish I had gotten it, or better yet nobody got it because then we'd only have to worry about what we were working on before this guy came along? Or is it because we had this open invitation to come one and come all, but then somebody actually took us up on it, but it isn't anybody I know?

Part 2 of 3

One small vein ... one giant leap Part 3 of 3

[SeriousDomains]

Bottom line is I staked out lots of camps in one vein of the corporate valley. It was a vein that I saw that was untapped, and had no apparent interest for years, from people in the Linux community, or elsewhere. So I staked a vein, and identified specific service sectors that I'm interested in, in my consulting practice, and I set out to sell some of them. I've encounted resentment and righteous puffery because I was an unknown, and because some people don't trust the unknown, and measures have been exclusionary because of philosophical differences.

LinuxInfrastructures.com, and LinuxRollouts.com and LinusInnovation.com and LinuxBenchmarking, and most of our other Linux domain names have to do with the corporate service sector, which we've been players in, for 14 years. To say that offering domain names for sale will dilute the Linux marketplace as some have claimed is absolutely absurd. There are literally thousands of unregistered domain names for sale. To say that LinuxInfrastructures or any of my names suggest ownership of the mark is also ludicrous. To say that buying parts of a vein and then selling off some of my stakes (or at least offering them for sale) to help finance my expansion is inappropriate, is also absurd.

Just like an incubator in a research park, there are lots of little niches in the vein I've staked out. There are even more business incubators out there in a lot more Linux valleys and a lot more Linux veins, and all of them have a lot more money and a lot more everything then we have right now.

But there are also a lot of businesses out there who don't have much imagination, and if you've been a consultant for very long you you've encountered that, ten times over. Sometimes you need to build an opportunity and paint a picture until somebody gets it. And that creative image making and position staking is not only worth something, but it's an entire industry, with lots of Manhattan advertising agencies and corporate identity makers charging millions for it. And there are still thousands of domain names out there -- Hundreds of thousands -- if you don't like what we have, so where's the ruffle?

Worrying that a collection of domain names is going to keep others from good names is the same kind of mis-enlightenment that the guy in the patent office in the early 1900's had, when he said "Everything that's ever going to be invented has already been invented." Let's get with it. Is this open source, open invitation, or not? What are we really afraid of? Are legitimate business uses of Linux derivative names, including creating domain names for specific mindshare positions and then selling them like any worthy business asset, to be allowed or not? You can cry nay, but my domain names are not for everyone. The people who want to create their own names, have tons to choose from, without my help.

Mine, however, are for specific type companies that I'm used to working with, that LIKE to be given turnkey packages for corporate identities, etc. or who want specific keyword identities. In that scenario, is it not conceivable, that creating these names, that did not exist at all until I created them, will actually build value and contribute to the Linux community? Again, what are we really afraid of?

To say that using Linux to get money is an isolated behavior for domain speculators (as in "now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.") is a limited view. Linux in the name is critical to being a player, any player, in this industry. As reported in an earlier post, LinuxCare's filing says "If we fail to adequately promote and maintain our brand name or are unable to continue using "Linux" as part of our brand name, our business may be adversely affected." Yeah. Ditto.

So we're back to is it okay to squash and block because of a philosophical difference when no wrongdoing or damage to the mark is proven? Open-minded objectivity is going to be key here. What happened to me does not, from where I'm sitting, feel like open minded, open source anything . And objective analysts in this forum, and even Linus Torvalds himself, would not support, I believe, the way I was actually treated. (See what really happened..)

Part 3 of 3

Conflict of interests?

[SeriousDomains]

As in any industry group like LI, the group spends lots of thankless hours doing a host of very worthy and very time consuming things, and usually there's at least a few that do a stand out job and carry a lot of the weight. Been there and done that, in the multimedia industry, so kudos to all the effort and hours at LI.

Nevertheless, if we're honest, this gets kind of sticky, especially as some of the members of this organization, have a dual role in commercial ventures. As commercial ventures raise tremendous capital, with tremendous pressure to perform for investors, the stakes get higher. So how do you sort all that out, when conflicts of interest must rise, sometimes?

I'm naturally concerned about the role of apparent designated trademark preservationists who also have roles at VALinux and LinuxCare. I'm concerned that one of them was the one, according to the lawyer, who contacted the lawyer initially to go after us. And I'm concerned to find out when I got that first email from the lawyer that courtesy copied them, that some of my names overlapped primary advertised services of one of their businesses, and to find out that their company went public today.

I'm not claiming any wrongdoing by any stretch, but I am saying that an oversight group that has simultaneous commercial interests could put the overseers in difficult or compromising positions, including appearances, even when all objectivity is maintained by the individuals involved.

But barring some self-sustaining oversight group, members must by definition come from commercial interests so there seems to be no easy solution.

You can see what happened to me, here.

And where are you from, mr mindless.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you encourage bigotry there, I guess? And are you accustomed to speaking so authoritatively about that which you don't know about? We were hacking hairballs out of punchcards before you were born, no doubt. And, as they say, a lot of our best friends are PUCC people, Purdue people, etc. We hire a lot of Purdue people. We're invited industry experts on the advisory panels for some of their technical academic departments. We have family members who are professors. Our founder is a Purdue alum - 6.0 out of 6.0 as a matter of fact on her Masters. (Phi Beta Kappa, Mortar Board, Magna Cum Laude, etc. on undergraduate). We do visiting professor roles. We introduce them to industry luminaries. We're pals with lots of people you've only heard of. We've won national and international technical awards for cutting edge programming and design. Don't worry, a lot of Purdue people are already knocking on our doors.

If you want the scoop on us, and what went down on the auction, and why we were selling the names, go to http://www.seriousdomains.com/linux.shtml and take your sense of humor with you, if you have time to get off your high horse. Or is that an armchair I see. Ah, yes. ... whoah, what was that sailing over your head? Oh, a thought. Ooh, an independent one, too. Culture shock.

It leads to some questionable tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's watching though. Or they're looking the other way.

See this

What hard work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to see if you could flesh out this argument/rant a little better.

"You don't create value, you just try to profit from other people's hard work...."

And that would be the hard work of ....?

Correct terminology: copyright, trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright not copywrite, is the RIGHT to COPY.
Trademark is the right to use a name to identify your business.

z) been downsized

[Anonymous Coward]

/.

Re:Roger Virgin, the Welsh plumber

[Anonymous Coward]

He looks a lot like ESR...
Also, it's kinda funny what Roger means in colloquial British (anal sex)

Re:Roger Virgin, the Welsh plumber

[Anonymous Coward]

About as funny as Randy is in British (sexually aroused)