Slashdot Mirror


SSC Trademark Threats vs LinuxGazette.net

Zelligar writes "You may want to check into the brewing trademark issues between SSC/linuxgazette.com and the linuxgazette.net people - linuxgazette is a volunteer gazette, hosted by SSC for a while, and now SSC is taking it over - and threatening trademark litigation to boot! Here is one story and another on the subject."

162 comments

  1. Geez. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Glad I let my subscription to Linux Journal lapse. I don't want my money going to support trademark thugs.

    ~~~

    1. Re:Geez. by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1

      Mine lapsed because they put the overseas prices (I'm in the UK. Hi.) up by 40% one year.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    2. Re:Geez. by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I purchase whatever Linux mags I can find here, whenever they come out, as a show of support for them. They seem to disappear regularly, though.
      More on topic, we really need to know (and yes I have read both sides of this story) whether, when SSC started paying the contributors, if there was something in their contract(s) ahnding over the trademark. If there was, then this is a dead issue and the old guard is in the wrong. If SSC was paying for the editing, and if they had a standard "all production by the employees belongs to the company" clause, then the new linuxgazette.net folk might be out of luck.
      As a reference, I give you the "Famous Amos" cookie company, based out of my home state. When Amos got disgusted, quit, and started a new company, he had to name it "Noname" and be blurred out of the commercials because his picture and name were trademarked to the company that took him over.

    3. Re:Geez. by kinzillah · · Score: 1

      Such "thugs" are required to vigorously defend their trademarks or they can be nullified.

      --
      Douglas P. Price
    4. Re:Geez. by pla · · Score: 1

      Such "thugs" are required to vigorously defend their trademarks or they can be nullified.

      These particular thugs registered their trademark on the exact same day, 10/28/2003, that the non-corporate-lackeys among them notified SSC of their intent to split. If that alone doesn't call the validity of their trademark into question (or even make registering it a prosecuteably fradulent act), I don't know what would.

    5. Re:Geez. by fyl · · Score: 1
      Let me point out that "us thugs" have had the trademark based on common-law trademarks many years. Besides being editors and publishers of Linux Gazette for seven years (editors from Marjorie Richardson to Mike Orr were SSC employees), we sold sponsorships for the site as far back as 1999.

      The reason we registered the trademark was to protect it. That is, if we hadn't registered it, someone else could have and the process to establish the rightful owner would have been much more complicated.

      I'm sorry that some of the LG volunteers did not see our changes as progress and did not want to work with us to make LG a better site. I respect their right to start their own publication--just not their right to take the name with them.

      In the mean time, we are putting a lot of effort into the new site. We are preserving the monthly edition concept but we also think people having to wait a month to see an article or get an answer is not what computers are all about. Based on the survey, the majority of the people responding agree with our direction. Or, more accurately, our direction reflects the input from the majority of the survery responses.

      --
      Phil Hughes, Linux Journal
    6. Re:Geez. by pla · · Score: 1

      the process to establish the rightful owner would have been much more complicated.

      The "rightful owner"? SSC hosted it, for which you built up a sizeable karma reserve. However, the title of "editor" for a pool of volunteer-submitted articles strikes me as little more than an honorific. "Okay, you guys will host our work, you can appoint your own "Grand Pubah of the Linux Gazette" if you want to.

      But owned? How about the four(?) months the LG existed before SSC became involved? I suppose that means nothing, even though in patent-law (which I know doesn't apply here, but I want to give a legal/moral analogy) it would count as prior art?


      I'm sorry that some of the LG volunteers did not see our changes as progress and did not want to work with us to make LG a better site.

      Perhaps public perception differs from the reality in this case. But from material available at the two LG sites, it would appear that SSC basically wanted to turn the LG into little more than another blog site, which after this mess came out to the public, SSC decided to reverse around 90% of the changes. If such an improvement, why revert to almost the same as before the schizm?

      Blogs and newssites have their uses. But an actual, formalized journal-format has something both lack - Permanance. The web has a major shortage of that, which LG provided. If I want a blog or newssite, I'll read K5 or NewsForge, respectively. People read LG for an entirely different reason, which SSC apparently intended to eliminate. Thus the backlash.


      As I said, SSC has built up some karma for doing the Linux community such a service for so long. But in case you haven't kept up on your Slashdot reading, most of us REALLY dislike corporate BS like this. Your actual authors, the people who give you something to publish, decided you no longer served the best interests of the LG. So while you may actually win the name, your/their readers will follow the content, not the name.

      That said, I have no particular personal interest in the outcome of this. I'll read both LG sites for a while, and see how this turns out. If SSC appears more-or-less honest in their intent, I sincerely wish you well. I can't say, though, that I currently have a lot of hope for that.

  2. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poster:
    linuxgazette is a volunteer gazette

    Which one? The .com or the .net one?

  3. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry. SCO will sue SSC out of business. For one thing, it is involved with Linux. For another, it sounds too much like SCO anyway (both in name and action)

    There can only be ONE company that files frivolous lawsuits about Linux!!!!

  4. Come on... by loucura! · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are required by law to proactively defend their trademark or they lose the protection. This story brings me to conclude that it must be a slow news day.

    --
    Black and grey are both shades of white.
    1. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the articles are from Linux Gazette.

      In other news, CNN reports that it reports the news.

    2. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it must be a slow news day.

      The day has just started... DVD Jon is on trial again.

    3. Re:Come on... by loucura! · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our our-news-is-news reporting overlords.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    4. Re:Come on... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're not required by law to proactively defend an invalid trademark. I'd say any "trademark" with the word "Linux" in it not owned by Linus Torvalds has a shaky foundation. It's not like I can trademark "Pepsi News" or "McDonald's Customers".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      It's not like I can trademark "Pepsi News".

      You sure could. As long as you don't sell any products that are close to what PepsiCo sells. Also, Linux hasn't been enforcing his trademark, so he couldn't win a suit at this point. Which is a good thing. He just had to trademark it to keep others from doing that. Also, marks just need to be clearly distinct to consumers. I think LinuxGazette.com isn't confusing with Linux the kernel, so it's valid for that reason as well.

    6. Re:Come on... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      If Pepsi News is about Pepsi Cola, then no, I can't register it.

      People have interpreted this thing of different industries rather more conservatively than the law does. Try selling a few T-shirts with trademarks of companies that do not sell clothing, and see how long before you get a lawsuit.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Come on... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is, they applied for the trademark on October 28th, 2003. This, of course, is the same exact day that the other people decided to split off from them. And this isn't "a few contributors", this is *all the staff*. Basically the only people left at Linuxgazette.com are SSC's people -- everyone who actually worked on Linuxgazette has left.

      So yeah. Something's fishy here. Not sure what, but the impression I got (from the article and the emails posted to LWN) was that:

      SSC basically offered them hosting space for a long period of time.

      Having done so, SSC has basically started taking over recently, changing LinuxGazette.com from a newspaper type website to a blog/slashdot type "Content Managment System" site. This includes them taking older articles that were published under the OPL an removing the copyright notice, modifying articles at will without telling anyone (or even asking), and stuff like that. The only reason anyone noticed they were modifying articles was the original staff kept mirrors of the issues elsewhere, which were unedited.

      The founders/authors weren't happy with this, so they decided rather than fight it, they'd just split off to "the other Linuxgazette" and poiltely request that SSC rename Linuxgazette.com and give them back their domain name.

      SSC decides that hey, since they were hosting LinuxGazette.com, they now own LinuxGazette.*, and trademarks the name in reply to them deciding to leave.

      Am I close? Anyone got any corrections to offer?

    8. Re:Come on... by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      It's not like I can trademark "Pepsi News".

      You sure could. As long as you don't sell any products that are close to what PepsiCo sells.


      I don't think so. There is apparently a difference between a regular trademark or business name, and a "famous mark".

      I'm not entirely clear on what criteria a "mark" must meet to become a "famous mark", but I'm pretty sure you couldn't have a Pepsi Publishing Company, for example.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  5. How Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can't just decide you don't like a site and try to make a copycat site using the same name and logo. That's like saying that I don't like Coke so I am going to make my own soda and call it Coke and use the same logos. Trademark laws exist to protect the customer as much as the company. By protecting the images and name of a company the consumer can be assured that what they are buying is the original. The same should hold true for something free and open.

    1. Re:How Stupid by sapone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But what if it was not a copycat site but a site made by some of the people who who ran the first site?

      This is about a volunteer project, and the projecst has split. Who is to say which of the two groups can keep the name and which cannot?

      Sebastian

    2. Re:How Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that isn't the case. linuxgazette.com was first, and linuxgazzete.net is a ripoff of the .com

      Who is to say which of the two groups can keep the name and which cannot?

      The law. That's how it works, braniac.

      How is this even news?

    3. Re:How Stupid by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 2, Funny

      The solution is obvious, AOL CD duel at dawn
      Walk ten paces from each other, turn and hurl AOL CDs at each other, the first one to decapitate the other is the winner

      (Well its one use for the CDs)

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    4. Re:How Stupid by sapone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > linuxgazette.com was first, and linuxgazzete.net is a ripoff of the .com

      Of course the website "linuxgazette.com" existed before; but now many (most? all?) of the volunteers who ran this project (and who see themselves as "Linux Gazette" have created a new site, since the old one is no longer under their control. The company who once offered to host it now claims to own it. Read the linuxgazette.net side of the story at http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html

      Quote:
      "SSC, the company who had been hosting - and, to some degree, supporting - our efforts since shortly after the inception of the Gazette has decided that it somehow belongs to them, to change, adapt - or to destroy - at their pleasure."

      > The law. That's how it works, braniac.
      But how do you know that the company is the rightful owner of the trademark and can do what it wants with it, without knowing about the agreements SSC had whith the linuxgazette people?

    5. Re:How Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter in either case. Linux Gazette does not have a valid trademark, unless they've been officially blessed by Linus Torvalds.

    6. Re:How Stupid by minus9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does Microsoft own the trademark on NT magazine?
      NT Magazine

    7. Re:How Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story has nothing to do with FreeBSD.

    8. Re:How Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither did the parent post?
      We can have ACs why not AIdiots?

    9. Re:How Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But how do you know that the company is the rightful owner of the trademark and can do what it wants with it, without knowing about the agreements SSC had whith the linuxgazette people? Boom.

      Open and shut, volunteers lose. NEXT!

  6. Does anyone care? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've read both aritcles and I'm still confused. What the heck is the point and why should I care? Its not the least bit interesting. If we could mod article submissions i would moderate this one -1 boring. If there was such a choice. I've submitted many articles that were much more interesting only to have them rejected. I guess this must be a slow news day.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Does anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is the executive summary:

      linuxgazette.com changed the way their site works by using a content management system. Some frequent contributors decided they didn't like it so they registered linuxgazette.net and copied the logos and name to the new site. linuxgazette.com said that as long as that is the case they will not allow links to that site from theirs.

      This is a silly total non-issue.

    2. Re:Does anyone care? by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      NOTE: BOTH stories are from SSC's side.

      Neither reflects the other side of the coin.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    3. Re:Does anyone care? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I've read both aritcles and I'm still confused. What the heck is the point and why should I care?

      Brief summary (and I'm not informed about this particular spat). LinuxGazette was originally a newsletter that one guy decided to put out to "help people have a just a little more fun" with Linux. He reminded me a lot of Cliff Stoll -- folksy, nice, and very into just helping people out.

      As it happened, more and more volunteers started joining, and the LG became one of the early sources for good Linux information and tips.

      The folks that publish Linux Journal (a commercial, nonvolunteer publication) started getting involved at some point, paying for an editor and hosting.

      Now, the publisher (which has put money and time into Linux Gazette) and at least a large chunk of the volunteers disagree about whether or not to change the format of the gazette.

      Frankly, I really don't see the problem. I understand that if you've spent a lot of time working on something, you get upset if you lose it.

      Here's my take:

      SSC/Linux Journal should get the trademark (legally, if not morally). They registered the thing. It's ugly, but that's life. Not sure whether the fact that it was around for a long time pre-registration is an issue.

      SSC/Linux Journal needs to stop modifying copyright information, removing article authors and replacing them with itself. That was a complaint of the forkers. They are quite in the legal right.

      The readers deserve to be informed. Putting up information about this on both sites and linking to each other is important.

      The readers will go to whatever they want -- if one sucks, they'll leave it.

      It's sad that such friendly volunteer work wound up in such a legal tangle. I guess that the moral of the story is: avoid companies unless you're damned sure that they won't screw you over.

    4. Re:Does anyone care? by pantherace · · Score: 3, Interesting
      As mentioned other places, the trademark was applied for the same day the linux gazette staff sent a letter to them telling them they were moving it.

      SSC never owned the LG, and they have been removing at least one copyright. Essentially they were providing hosting. I would compare this to something being hosted on sourceforge.net, and then when you tell sf that you are moving away because you don't like something which conflicts with your ideas about the project, sf registers a trademark and becomes a legal jerk.

      I seriously doubt the above (sourceforge) group would do that, but it appears to have happened with SSC.

  7. This sounds abit overblown by MooCows · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong:

    Summary:

    1. Things changed at linuxgazette.com
    2. Some contributers didn't like it (neither do I), and started their own site.
    3. They were bright enough to use linuxgazette.net (of all places) for their new site. (even stealing the logo design)
    4. linuxgazette.com doesn't like it, and tells linuxgazette.net to start their own site if they want, but not with the linuxgazette name.
    5. linuxgazette.net doesn't agree, and the threats start to fly
    (6. Profit?)

    All very reasonable if you ask me .. what if SCO started using something like "L1nux" for their new OS eh? :P

    --
    The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
    30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
    1. Re:This sounds abit overblown by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      All very reasonable if you ask me .. what if SCO started using something like "L1nux" for their new OS eh? :P

      Actually, it would be like Linus Torvalds suing you for calling your new kernel L1nux. SCO doesn't hold any trademark rights to the name "Linux."* Those belong to Linus.

      * Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:This sounds abit overblown by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Here's another view on things. From this view:

      1. Linuxgazette.com is taken over by an entity with the power to do so. (Because it provided sponsorship and hosting)
      2. The original contributors, believing themselves to be the real Linux Gazette, move the site to a different hosting service, grabbing LinuxGazette.net to use as the domain service. They feel justified in doing this because they consider themselves, the actual authors of the magazine, to be the magazine.
      3. Because they believe themselves to be the magazine, they have no problems using the name and logo.
      4. The sponsor and host of the "old" LinuxGazette is taken aback by this and the fact that it had less control over the magazine than it thought, and tells the contibutors to at least disassociate themselves with the original.
      5. Threats fly.

      I suspect the truth lies in the middle. Either way, neither has a legitimate legal claim to the LinuxGazette name unless they've negotiated with Linus Torvalds who owns the Linux trademark. The .net people have probably the easiest exit, and therefore should probably be the people to buckle, not out of legal or (otherwise) moral requirement to do so, but to minimize confusion about what are clearly two seperate entities. That might be something as simple as calling it "NewLinuxGazette" or "RealLinuxGazette", if they feel strongly about what they see as having their publication taken from them.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:This sounds abit overblown by Arker · · Score: 1

      There's more to it. Linuxgazette was not a creation of SSC, and it's not a 'dissident group' leaving. Linuxgazette was a volunteer organisation from the beginning, and SSC picked it up and hosted it after it had been around some time. Apparently their business got intermixed over that period, and now both SSC and the Linuxgazette staff think they own the name and design and so forth. The entire staff of Linuxgazette have left, and are continuing Linuxgazette as it's always been from a new location, while SSC intends to use the brand for an entirely different sort of site and is threatening them with legal action.

      Here's the other side of it on LWN. Of course who actually owns the trademark is something the lawyers will probably have to argue over.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:This sounds abit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Either way, neither has a legitimate legal claim to the LinuxGazette name unless they've negotiated with Linus Torvalds who owns the Linux trademark

      No. Publications have a fair-use right to the trademarked name as long as they acknowledge the trademark. Trademarks are not general and they apply only to specific uses: the Linux trademark applies only to software. I could come out with a Linux brand dog food and not be infringing on the Linux software trademark.

      This is why Microsoft loses when it tries to extend the Windows trademark to non-computer areas.

    5. Re:This sounds abit overblown by onallama · · Score: 1
      All very reasonable if you ask me .. what if SCO started using something like "L1nux" for their new OS eh? :P

      Whoa -- that would be 50 1337!

    6. Re:This sounds abit overblown by nehril · · Score: 1

      Can't really tell but:

      it looks more like linuxgazette.com was hosted by ssc in some strange way. then ssc decided to radically change the way linuxgazette.com works: turning it into a blog public posting style site versus the existing editor-selected-articles published on a schedule system.

      the existing staff decided to move elsewhere and are using the .net temporarily, and expected SSC to hand over the .com. Meanwhile, SSC reposted their old articles on .com without author attribution and without copyright notice (they replaced the author's copyright with their own).

      Both sides obviously think they "own" linuxgazette.com in name, body and logo, wholly and utterly. At core the issue is really: Who really owns the linuxgazette.com entity and it's assets?

    7. Re:This sounds abit overblown by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      Publications have a fair-use right to the trademarked name as long as they acknowledge the trademark.
      Indeed they do. However, they have no legitimate claim to a trademark that incorporates another without the consent of the original. You cannot register "Coke News" as a trademark refering to a magazine publishing information about Coca-Cola: you may use such a name, but you have no rights to it and wouldn't be able to sue someone else for using it. Unless, of course, you actually are the Coca Cola Company.
      Trademarks are not general and they apply only to specific uses: the Linux trademark applies only to software. I could come out with a Linux brand dog food and not be infringing on the Linux software trademark.
      Are you seriously suggesting that Linux, in Linux Gazette, doesn't refer to operating systems based upon the kernel Linus Torvalds developed?
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:This sounds abit overblown by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      Your summary is completely off, as it misses about four steps at the very beginning: first, a group of people started Linux Gazette. The publication took off, to the point where it generated more traffic than their original ISP would allow. They looked for a new site, and SSC offered to provide web hosting.

      What this means is that SSC's trademark application is invalid: you can't own a name you didn't coin and you didn't buy.

    9. Re:This sounds abit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. The primary mirror site started to make moves to change Linux Gazette significantly. The original maintainers (the bulk of the whole team) informed this 'host' that they would acquire new hosting if these changes took effect. SSC made the changes, Linux Gazette found a new hosting provider and registered a new domain (linuxgazette.net). The site was not 'forked', it simply moved. What is at linuxgazette.com is not Linux Gazette, but some new site that bears little resemblance to the old one. The hijacking of Linux Gazette has been performed by SSC in removing the old site and installing a new one under the same domain name. There are other problems associated with this move such as removing references to authors, a last minute hijack attempt by registering linuxgazette for trademark, etc. Please refer to http://lwn.net/Articles/56147/ for more info.

    10. Re:This sounds abit overblown by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1
      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  8. Forking a website? by scumdamn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently a group of volunteers has decided to fork the Linux Gazzette website and didn't bother to change the name of it. This doesn't sound like a big draconian company taking over a volunteer publication and beginning to sue everyone in site. It's more of a proper use of trademark law to me.

    1. Re:Forking a website? by nuggz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But according to Rick Moen. http://lwn.net/Articles/58065/

      LinuxGazette was founded by a group, it was hosted independantly for a short period of time.

      SSC provided hosting for many years and things got closer. They even paid for some writers.

      Now they are leaving, and taking their name with them.
      SSC thinks they own LinuxGazette, The volunteer group does not.

      I think it will be interesting to see how SSC proves they own the name.

    2. Re:Forking a website? by Theatetus · · Score: 1, Informative
      I think it will be interesting to see how SSC proves they own the name.

      Well, this might be a good example of how they can prove they own the name. To quote the relevant part:

      Owner (APPLICANT) Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc. CORPORATION 2208 NW Market St Suite 407 Seattle WASHINGTON 98107
      I believe that Specialized Systems Consultants is the "SSC" in question.
      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    3. Re:Forking a website? by mik · · Score: 1

      True, SSC has applied for a trademark... on October 28, 2003. If this is after the friction began, then there is probably significant grounds for disputing the claim.

    4. Re:Forking a website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, it is interesting that SSC chose to register a trademark on the day they received a letter indicating that the entire Linux Gazette staff was moving the content from linuxgazette.com. In addition, the trademark record lists the first use as 19950701, a date before SSC was involved in Linux Gazette.

      This is not much different from hijacking a domain. Although SSC is listed as the owner of the trademark at this point, given that SSC may have copyright violations on its site, the trademark may well be open to challenge. The process could be that similar to how Linus Torvalds was awarded the Linux trademark.

    5. Re:Forking a website? by scarhill · · Score: 1

      The registration date is October 28, 2003, even though Linus Gazette has been publishing since '95. Sounds like SSC decided to register the trademark only when they realized they had a problem. That registration might be succeptible to challenge.

    6. Re:Forking a website? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      That was done in 2003, not 1997 or whenever the LG started. One can't retroactively claim a trademark because they provided a few (big) favors to the original group of volunteers.

    7. Re:Forking a website? by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      First, it says Owner(APPLICANT). That means that SSC is applying for the trademark. Second, notice the date: they didn't file for the trademark until after the staff announced that they were splitting.

  9. Trademark by nuggz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who owns the trademark?

    Is it a valid trademark?
    If the volunteer organization used the name linuxgazette before it was registered by SSC, it is likely not a valid trademark.

    I love to see litigation happy companies lose and come out behind.
    The Word Wresting Federation against the World Wildlife Fund was fun.

    1. Re:Trademark by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except that the World Wildlife Fund was the litigation-happy one, and they won...

      --
      evil adrian
    2. Re:Trademark by loucura! · · Score: 3, Informative

      SSC owns the trademark, the "volunteer organisation" is made up of people who used to contribute to the SSC/linuxgazette.com site, and got angry that they migrated to a CMS, so they split and took the name. That sort of hijacking is what trademark law is for.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    3. Re:Trademark by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you'd like to read their side of the story?

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    4. Re:Trademark by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      SSC owns the trademark, the "volunteer organisation" is made up of people who used to contribute to the SSC/linuxgazette.com site, and got angry that they migrated to a CMS, so they split and took the name. That sort of hijacking is what trademark law is for.

      Exactly why should we care about this dispute?

      If a bunch of folk get tweaked about using a content management system - a twenty year old technology used on the web for ten years...

      Basically the group has forked and the dissident group had some links to their breakaway site. The SSC people then took out the links to stop people finding the breakaway site.

      The breakaway site is also calling itself the LinuxGazette. This is probably actionable if there is a valid trademark registration. But at the end of the day it is not the name, its the audience.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:Trademark by urulokion · · Score: 5, Informative
      I smell something very fishy going on. And I don't the Linux Gazette volunterrs. I wondered who had the trademark to "Linux Gazette". I ran the TM search and guess what I found.
      Word Mark LINUX GAZETTE
      Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Publication of Journal. FIRST USE: 19950701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960801
      Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
      Serial Number 78319880
      Filing Date October 28, 2003
      Current Filing Basis 1A
      Original Filing Basis 1A
      Owner (APPLICANT) Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc. CORPORATION 2208 NW Market St Suite 407 Seattle WASHINGTON 98107
      Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
      Register PRINCIPAL
      Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

      There is a trademark registered to SSC. But the application date was Oct 28,2003. The very same day that Rick Moen notified Phil Hugh that they were moving the magazine accord to the LWN article.

      SSC is playing dirty pool not the other around.

    6. Re:Trademark by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      cince when does a company automatically get to claim ownership of something that others created?

      SSC is trying to hijack the ownership of Linux Gazette. It was never EVER sold to them. they graciousally offered to host them.

      SSC are being the asshats. they dont OWN Linux Gazette, they never OWNED linux Gazette, and nothing can change that fact.

      SSC lost me when they made the Linux Journal into the ZiffDavis type crap it is today. the LJ used to be of the quality of Linux Format, a british Linux mag that is the best you can get today.

      this crud they are trying to pull only amplifies what is wrong in SSC.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Trademark by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you had checked the USPTO website, SSC registered the trademark on October 28th, 2003, or after this dispute had begun. The Whois has the domain registration in 1997 by SSC after the Linux Gazette had been publishing for 2 years.

      Issues have been copyright John Fisk, SSC, and the Linux Gazette group. All copyrights are also retained by the original authors.

      Actual ownership of the trademark will be a hairy one to sort out.

    8. Re:Trademark by chrisbtoo · · Score: 1

      The Word Wresting Federation

      Those were the guys who used to beat up on Clippy?

      --
      Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
    9. Re:Trademark by Pelorat · · Score: 1

      No, they're the ones who couldn't figure out the difference between 'loose' and 'lose' or 'their', 'they're', and 'there' even if someone was shoving bamboo slivers up their fingernails.

    10. Re:Trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN the WWF case it was an argument over just the domain name. Both held valid trademarks for their respective purporses. In this case the .net site is using the exact same name AND logo and has the same purpose.

    11. Re:Trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCC owns the trademark

      Are you sure? Did you check your facts?
      someone posted the PTO query here. Not only that but SSC has removed copyright notices from other people's work... that they didn't pay for! This is just some dumb person trying to capitalize on the backs of good people. I hope it gets shut down quickly.

    12. Re:Trademark by bizcoach · · Score: 3, Informative
      Exactly why should we care about this dispute?

      Because it teaches to clarify matters of trademark ownership early on. Right when LG started establishing a close relationship with SSC they should have made a contract that clarifies the question of who owns the trademark in case the relationship becomes sour.

      As things are (without contract, and with no payment having been received by the original creators of LinuxGazette in exchange for trademark rights), I think that the linuxgazette.net folks are probably not guilty of any trademark violation when using the LinuxGazette name.

      However, IANAL, and would be interested in reading comments from a lawyer on this matter.

    13. Re:Trademark by terrymr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not true .... The World Wrestling Federation had an agreement with the World Wildlife Fund not to use the initials WWF in place of the name World Wrestling Federation. When they violated this agreement they were sued and ordered to stop using WWF per their prior agreement.

    14. Re:Trademark by JoeBuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      SSC does not own the trademark. They are asserting that they own the trademark, but this won't wash, because the people who started Linux Gazette used that name before they had any relationship with SSC, and they never assigned that name to SSC. The person with the right to the trademark is the one that first used it.

  10. In other news... by Cap'nMike · · Score: 1, Funny

    I have recently opened a new site entitled, Slashdot, News for Geeks, Stuff That REALLY matters.

    --
    Celebrities are like ads, if we all ignore them, they'll just go away.
  11. And now the other side of the coin.... by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See http://linuxgazette.net/ for the traditional Linux Gazette. Ah, feel at home? Good.

    http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html is part of their side of the story.

    Personally, I think the CMS site sucks and goes against the spirit of what Linux Gazette has been for years.

    --
    Anything is possible given time and money.
    1. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      A few tidbits from the other side.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    2. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Personally, I think the CMS site sucks and goes against the spirit of what Linux Gazette has been for years.

      Kinda of ironic you're posting this comment to a site that relies heavily on a CMS don't you think? What's wrong with content management systems? The site is Slashdotted, but what are they using that is so bad? The URL looks like something like Drupal. It makes it a shitload easier to manage a site that way.

    3. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the linked webpage [emphasis mine]:

      "Mark Andreessen's Mosaic morphs into Netscape Navigator changes into the Communicator Suite mutates through (and survives!) The AOL Corporate Hellbeast emerges as Mozilla. The Linux Gazette, slated by SSC to slip off into a muddy swamp of CMS,obscurity, and the inevitably short slide into destruction, arises like the Phoenix from its intended pyre - purified, bright, and new."

      Yikes! This sounds like the raving of some cult leader with delusions of grandeur.

      "Welcome to the new Linux Gazette."

      I'm looking forward to their level-headed unbiased articles. NOT!

    4. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it were just another Linux portal, the site would be fine.

      However, Linux Gazette (the concept) has a history, a history of being a monthly webzine. I've looked forward to being able to browse each issue, not having to be in a hurry lest I miss something. And the archives make for good reference material.

      The change would be the same as if Slashdot came out once a month. That doesn't make sense either, does it?

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    5. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda of ironic you're posting this comment to a site that relies heavily on a CMS

      Excelent observation. This one started to suck live donkey's too, right after CMS got envolved. And you like that?

    6. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      Please, everyone, if you run a Linux-related site, link to linuxgazette.net using the link text "Linux Gazette". That way, Google will direct people to the real Linux Gazette when they do searches.

      And yes, linuxgazette.net is the real Linux Gazette, as it consists of the original staff, publishing in the original form, and Linux Gazette existed before SSC offered to host it.

      Also, everyone, if you subscribe to Linux Journal, please notify SSC that you will cancel your subscription they day they bring a legal action against the Linux Gazette staff.

    7. Re:And now the other side of the coin.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Cmdrtaco should be slapped for only posting SSC's side of the story (TWO links, yet!) in this article. This is a serious failure on /.'s part, as SSC is Clearly In The Wrong(TM.)

      --SSC should be BITCHslapped for trying to Bogart LG's body of work and the Whole Enchilada.

      --Everyone should update their bookmarks for the NEW LG:
      http://linuxgazette.net/index.html

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  12. To sue, or to be ignored, this is the question. by dan.hunt · · Score: 1

    If your legal department is on the offensive, you may need to lay off the marketing department.

  13. Join the fun!!! by kinnell · · Score: 2, Funny

    If anyone wants to make this even more ridiculous, the linuxgazette.org domain name is still up for grabs. It would be funny to see what the forkers think of their site being forked.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:Join the fun!!! by ErroneousBee · · Score: 1

      Hand the domain name over to Linus. That would make things *really* interesting, as they cant sue him without risking their acess to the Linux trademark.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
  14. This is Great! by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

    Because I know from another story that Open Source people love them feuds. :)

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
    1. Re:This is Great! by JK+Master-Slave · · Score: 1

      Well, and some of the feuds get good play here.

      This isn't a hAndover.net story or it'd be softpedaled a little more.

  15. Viewing the comments by Bazzargh · · Score: 1

    The new site seems to be broken, you can't read the comments. The URLs (eg http://www.linuxgazette.com//131#131) go nowhere, and the expand/flatten/whatever the comment tree buttons do nothing (I reckon I'm in caching/cookie hell here but its exactly the same in both IE6 and Moz1.5). After figuring out that the site uses drupal as its CMS, I realized the URLs should be, e.g.

    http://www.linuxgazette.com/node/view/134/131#13 1

    (for a comment on node 134). Looks like their URL rewriting is screwy. Anyway, hope this helps folk who wanted to read the site when it comes back up, seems /.ed right now.

  16. Rename it!! by attobyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just come up with a better name announce it on Slashdot with the URL and all is good. SSC can rot in hell with the "Linux Gazette" name.

    --
    I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

    Mike

    1. Re:Rename it!! by fritz1968 · · Score: 1

      How about:

      Thee Linux Gazette

      --
      It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
    2. Re:Rename it!! by timotten · · Score: 1

      It looks like their facing an uphill legal battle using a questionable legal argument and few legal resources. It's might be better to walk away from this fight.

      They could still have a name that reflects their "Linux Gazette" history. A few names:

      * lg-news (re-using their lg-* naming convention)
      * Likeable Gazette
      * Loveable Gazelle
      * LG Gazette ("LG" stands for "LG Gazette"...)

  17. Gazette by UglyMike · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm....

    I'd say bad form from the forkers...

    They themselves say something along the lines of
    Mozaic begat Netscape which begat Mozilla...
    Corrrect, but as far as I remember, each change meant another logo and another name!!
    These guys, whatever there motives, simply ripped of the LinuxGazette name and artwork!
    Fork the Gazette? Sure! Keep the form factor? No problem! Tell people to switch allegiance? OK. But hey, call it Linux Newspaper or so and get your own logo!

    1. Re:Gazette by nate1138 · · Score: 1

      One problem:

      The "forkers" are all of the original linuxgazette.com staff. They started the zine on their own dime, and after 2 years of running independent, SSC offered hosting. The gazette accepted this generous offer. Over the years, their business became intertwined. Now SSC claims to own the gazette. They are altering articles without the authors permission, and stripping the authors attribution and copyright notice and adding their own in its place. They are basically claiming copyright over everybody else's work. Sounds like another three letter company we all know and love, doesn't it?

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    2. Re:Gazette by JK+Master-Slave · · Score: 1

      This sounds remarkably like what could happen if Slashdot ever decided to break away from their overlords.

    3. Re:Gazette by markhb · · Score: 1

      The key difference there is that LG provides useful content, as opposed to /.. Also, I believe, that Rob and Jeff retained significant rights over the site when they initially sold to Andover.net.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    4. Re:Gazette by Arker · · Score: 1

      This sounds remarkably like what could happen if Slashdot ever decided to break away from their overlords.

      Except that the folks that started Slashdot sold it, and there are contracts with specific compensation etc. Doesn't seem to be any of that for Linuxgazette - just a hosting company deciding they own what they're hosting, and registering a trademark after they realise their content has decided to leave rather than take orders they find offensive.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  18. Read the timeline for a better view: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can read it in Linux Gazette Issue 96.

  19. Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    linuxgazette is a volunteer gazette

    Uh.. Which one is that?

  20. Summary & More info by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As posted below, more info is found here : http://lwn.net/Articles/58065/

    A lot of people aren't reading the links - here is a summary (again) :

    Linuxgazette.com - originally founded by a group of volunteers.

    SSC offered to host them, whee - works great.

    SSC took over editing at some point

    SSC changed the entire look/feel of the site, trashed the articles at will, and basically started locking out the original founders.

    the founders took their content to linuxgazette.net

    SSC, in the form of linuxgazette.com, is unhappy with the .net folks for continuing to use the name.

    IMHO - SSC should be ashamed for its bullying tactics. They should change the name of linuxgazette.com to something else, and give it back to the founders.

    1. Re:Summary & More info by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people aren't reading the links

      Maybe if you had posted, in your original post, links to both sides of the story things would actually make sense.

    2. Re:Summary & More info by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 1

      TRUE.

      I horked the submission... First time I ever felt strongly enough to make one, and I assumed that /. would do the research and such. oops.

      Now I know better, witness the multiple replies I have posted with better summaries, information and far better links!

    3. Re:Summary & More info by Micah · · Score: 1

      I agree. This is just making SSC look bad. Perhaps some of us could write them and persuade them to do the right thing and drop this?

      A fight like this is the last thing the community needs.

  21. I have a plan... by fuck_this_shit · · Score: 0

    1) Write online content for the washington post 2) Leave and put up my own washington post site 3) Sell lots of adds and... PROFIT!!! See? I have it planned better than the underpant gnomes.

  22. Fair arbitration by cocotoni · · Score: 1
    I say, let God decide who has the rights here, and since Google is God, try Googling for Linux Gazette...

    Google has spoken - LinuxGazette.com is the winner.

    1. Re:Fair arbitration by herrvinny · · Score: 1

      Wait at least a few weeks. Everybody will start linking to the .net one, Google will spider them, then assign .net the higher ranking.

  23. Even more info! by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first link on the main article are the SSC guys' comments on this, and the second link is the linuxgazette founders (.net) replies to his comments.

    Here is a link to the linuxgazette.net with their side of the story :

    Linux Gazette, Reborn

    Here are two links to the linuxgazette.com forums - lots of discussion in here from both sides. Be warned that the .com folks WILL DELETE any posting with the linuxgazette.net address in it. The censor stuff as they see fit.

    Forum: Anyone prefer the old site?

    Forum: New Site!


    Note that if you browse around the forums, a lot of things are broken. To view the forums in expanded format, most recent postings at the top, add &mode=2 to the URL. For example:

    http://www.linuxgazette.com/node/view/104&mode =2

  24. Cancel your subscription by peeping_Thomist · · Score: 1

    I just canceled my subscription to Linux Journal. It's a good magazine, but I'm sick of corporations acting like predators.

    --
    Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
  25. Linux trademark by Dusabre · · Score: 1

    I have the feeling that Linux has become generic i.e. you can use it in any way you want.

    Furthermore, Linus registered Linux in Nice category 9, i.e. computer and scientific equipment, not publications.

    Linux Week is a registered trademark for a publication and they didn't have to license anything from Linus (you cannot register a trademark that contains another trademarked element on the basis of a license. Either your mark is distinctive or it is not. A license allows you to use a mark but not to create another registerable one)

    SSC filed for a trademark on 28 October 2003. WHICH IS A BIT LATE to start suing Linux Gazette.

    I'm not sure of the Linux Gazette entity status and whether it exists as the body of defectors or as something owned by SSC but if its the second, then prior usage will grant the Linux Gazette trademark to them and as a result - only they can use it.

    1. Re:Linux trademark by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      I have the feeling that Linux has become generic i.e. you can use it in any way you want.
      I'd say that actually undermines, rather than bolsters, Linux Gazette's claim to owning a "Linux Gazette" trademark. If Linux were generic (and I don't believe it is - I've not seen non-Linux based software refered to as Linux before), then the term "Linux Gazette" would itself likely to be ruled generic, as you would generally refer to Linux gazettes as Linux gazettes. Remember, not all names of things are trademarkable. Newspapers in particular usually have to use logos and other design features to make their mark's distinctive, the names themselves rarely qualify on their own.
      Furthermore, Linus registered Linux in Nice category 9, i.e. computer and scientific equipment, not publications.
      The "Linux" refered to in the name "Linux Gazette" refers to the trademarked entity - ie the software Linus wrote. For Linux Gazette to be considered in a different category, the "Linux" in the name would have to refer to something other than computer and scientific equipment with no reasonable expectation anyone would confuse the two. Linux Gazette, registered by Linda Uxom, a magazine discussing the like of Ms Uxom, would count.
      Linux Week is a registered trademark for a publication and they didn't have to license anything from Linus
      If that's true, then it'd be because Linus is a nice guy who doesn't generally go around suing people. Ask yourself how long Coca-Cola News would last without the permission of the Coca-Cola company...
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Linux trademark by pantherace · · Score: 1
      I've not seen non-Linux based software refered to as Linux before

      I have: Solaris being Sun's version of Linux :)?P? The person was asking a question about it, but it was still funny.

  26. More more more by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:More more more by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Any mention of an email address? I did find a PO box. SSC is simply being too sleazy to let this go, IMO.

    2. Re:More more more by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 1

      On the linuxgazette.com main site, there is an email address for the publisher under 'Site News', near the bottom. There is also a reader survey.

  27. This is the same linuxjournal... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    This is the same Linux Journal that can not get my subscription to me. I have emailed them, but I get no response. I have like 18 months left on my sub, but the just ignore me.

    What has happened to them? They used to be great!

  28. what greedy bastards by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

    Why is it that everyone that has previously supported the linux community seems to becoming complete asshats, and are trying to "take over" the efforts of a hard-working community for their own profit? Just because something is "free" does not mean that you can steal it and call it your own. Copyright still applies. What rookies.

    SCO, now LinuxGazette, and I don't know how many others. What clowns.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  29. Damn... by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    Good catch, all. I forgot to look at the date.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  30. Internet Host claiming Internet Publication? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this the case I am reading about?

    It seems that the heart of the creative effort was at first merely hosted by SSC. But then SSC made contributions of its own. Does making contributions constitute ownership? If so, what portion of ownership is warranted? Even if they can own "part" of the trademark, how can they justify an assertion of wholely owning something they did not create from the beginning?

    Clearly there is more than meets the eye, but I feel there is essentially a common clash between commercial desires and those of serving a community. This is commonly mirrored by many things such as the community internet being overtaken by commercial interests at every turn.

    I do not wish to "take sides" but I think it is important to note that since the presence of the Amish in Pennsylvania has helped to maintain the level of tourist income, I think it would be appropriate to hang signs advertising other business activities on all "public faces" of the Amish community. The Amish, after all, owe a good part of their success to their popularity as a tourist attraction. It is only fair that they "give back" by permitting advertisers to hand huge signs from the backs and sides of their carts, wagons, horses and barns. We do not feel that a sign reading, "This barn raised, in part, by Rice-a-Roni(tm) the San Francisco Treat!(tm)" would be at all out of place or out of the question.

  31. Someone took it... by herrvinny · · Score: 1

    According to a GoDaddy WHOIS request:

    Domain ID:D92984598-LROR
    Domain Name:LINUXGAZETTE.ORG
    Created On:10-Dec-2002 10:34:35 UTC
    Last Updated On:24-Nov-2003 21:53:31
    UTCExpiration Date:10-Dec-2003 10:34:35 UTCSponsoring Registrar:R52-LROR
    Status:
    OKRegistrant
    ID:1068 6362381480
    Registrant Name:Ultimate Search
    Registrant Street1:GPO Box 7862
    Registrant City:Central
    Registrant State/Province:HKRegistrant
    Postal Code:NARegistrant
    Country:HKRegistrant
    Email:dns @ultsearch.com
    Admin ID:10686362384500
    Admin Name:DNS Support
    Admin Street1:GPO Box 7862
    Admin City:CentralAdmin
    State/Province:HKAdmin
    Postal Code:NAAdmin
    Country:HKAdmin
    Phone:+852.85225379 677
    Admin Email:dns@ultsearch.com
    Tech ID:10686362391430
    Tech Name:DNS
    SupportTech Street1:GPO box 7862
    Tech City:CentralTech
    State/Province:HKTech
    Postal Code:NATech
    Country:HKTech
    Phone:+1.85225379677
    Tech Email:dns@ultsearch.com
    Name Server:NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM
    Name Server:NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM

    Looks like some porn merchant took it. However, only the .com, .net, and .org are taken. Still can take .us, .biz, etc

  32. SSC.... by alexborges · · Score: 0

    You better be carefull, we do not forgive nor forget, stand down!

    --
    NO SIG
  33. Mod Comment by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I'm going to have to agree with those that modded my original post down. It wasn't "informative". It was the exact opposite of informative, a question. However, I'm not sure why it was modded flamebait that seems a little harsh. But what ever is neeeded to bring it back down is fine. The posters who responded to me, now those are informative posts. Mod them up, not me.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  34. SSC does not own the trademark by ClarkEvans · · Score: 3, Informative

    What SSC has is a *application* for a trademark, and no doubt this will be a disputed application. I suggest that the linuxgazette.NET people write the PTO and explain their side of the story before the trademark publishes... although, they probably have several months to do so. Trademarks take quite a bit of time. SSC's attempt to do a last-minute trademark file and then sue is not only mean spirited, but stupid.
    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=do c&state=h prn5r.2.1


    Word Mark LINUX GAZETTE
    Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Publication of Journal. FIRST USE: 19950701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960801
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 78319880
    Filing Date October 28, 2003
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Owner (APPLICANT) Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc. CORPORATION 2208 NW Market St Suite 407 Seattle WASHINGTON 98107
    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  35. they do *not* own the trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. SSC can do whatever they want, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Jim Dennis and the Answer Gang aren't answering questions, it's not the LinuxGazette.

  37. Let the Words Have Meaning by cmacb · · Score: 1

    Ownership is important, but words convey meaning...

    Definitions:

    gazette: A newspaper; a printed sheet published periodically; esp., the official journal published by the British government, and containing legal and state notices.

    journal: A daily register of the ship's course and distance, the winds, weather, incidents of the voyage, etc. (c) (Legislature) The record of daily proceedings, kept by the clerk. (d) A newspaper published daily; by extension, a weekly newspaper or any periodical publication, giving an account of passing events, the proceedings and memoirs of societies, etc.; a periodical; a magazine.


    If SSC wanted to run a Content Management System (CMS) I think that is a great idea. But Linux Gazette has always been in a magazine format. Static pages. In fact there is Debian package that allows you to grab back issues to download onto your laptop if you like.

    But a CMS is not a magazine, or a gazette. In fact it would have made MUCH more sense for SSC to convert Linux Journal into an CMS format than what they did.

    The other thing that is bothersome about this (once you dig a little deeper) is that the decision to convert to a CMS format and the selection process for the software to be used happened almost over night. The CMS was put in place with obvious bugs an omissions and it was clearly still in the R&D phase (still is in fact) with many features not quite working as they would like yet. Why would you throw out a perfectly working format and put something in its place that was so clearly still under heavy development?

    Regardless of who ends up owning the words "Linux Gazette" the SSC handling of this thing is at best "ham handed", and hardly what you would expect from an established publishing company.

    I have been a regular reader of Linux Journal and Linux Gazette. I plan to suspend my purchasing of the former until the fate of the latter becomes more clear. Frankly, most CMS format publications suck. Slashdot is on of the few exceptions. SSC should have done the CMS experiment on the side and left the Linux Gazette format alone at least until the new thing had established itself. To say that the Linux Gazette has forked is not quite analogous to what has happened. If someone took KWORD and gutted the program and turned it into an astrology program I don't think you would call that a fork, I think you would call it a dumb idea. I think what SSC did was dumb, and the community needs to see that it is in their best interest to set it right again.

    1. Re:Let the Words Have Meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can ask is: Slashdot is an exception? ;-p

      -- vranash

  38. let the market decide... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    If the "renegade" bunch have to ditch the Linux Gazette name... I'll still follow them. The "new" SSC site is a nightmare. I have a major preference for the format on the linuxgazzette.net site... not only that, but they provide a palm friendly download of the current issue :) and the offline browsing version has always been a winner for me.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  39. Forks stealing trademarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen a lot of this lately, and mostly side with the established projects that have a lot of effort invested in a name-brand. Certainly when people become part of the open-source community there's plenty of talk about how free everything is, but very little about respecting trademarks. The GPL and other free licenses let you reuse code, but if the name is trademarked then that name (or anything "confusingly similar") is not yours to take.

    I'd like to see more of an effort to respect other people's project names. We don't need to step on toes, and it doesn't help the OSS community in any way to get a reputation for being a bunch of name thieves.

  40. SSC does *not* own the trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  41. Read the history - Who is LinuxGazette ? by SmegTheLight · · Score: 2, Informative
    This achive of Issue # 8 seems to be unclear as to what happened when they started being hosted by Linux Journal.

    And finally, I want to offer a very special note of thanks to Phil Hughes at the Linux Journal. Phil is one of those infectiously nice guys that starts a casual conversation with you and after 2 hours, you're talking and laughing like life-long buddies. He's a great guy and I'm absolutely delighted that he and the folks at the Linux Journal have been willing to take over the care and feeding of the Linux Gazette.
    That seems to be on the Forkers Side - Just a hosting arangement.

    but..

    So, after chatting at some length with Phil Hughes about this, I've decided to turn the Linux Gazette over to the Linux Journal. I think that the Gazette has demonstrated the "proof of concept" -- that a freely available and open-to-all online publication is a great means for sharing information and ideas. There are a number of great things that could be done with this and I'm excited about the Gazette continuing on in this tradition.
    Seems to show that Fisk is turning it over to SCC. If that is the case then this is SCC's
    You can seen in the write up where each side is getting their views

    Net result, this could have all been handled with a little more tact on both sides. If SCC had just followed the wishes of the people who produced the article, this wouldn't have been a problem.

    It should have been the creators of the work, the volunteers who should have been deciding on what direction the magazine should take. Not some marketroid who found way to suck $$, or techie who felt this was his site, and wanted to put up a CMS and/or excert his power.
    --
    Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
  42. SSC by fingusernames · · Score: 3, Informative

    I too am sick of the greed happening here. Fact: Linux Gazette was started by people other than SSC. SSC later hosted it. That doesn't mean they own it, doesn't mean they own the name. If SSC can show some legal documents saying otherwise, please show them. But I doubt they have such. Unfortunatly, some overly trusting person permitted SSC to register and own the linuxgazette.com domain name. Given the likely lack of other documentary evidence, that may count for something if this actually goes to court. Hopefully the fact that Linux Gazette existed prior to SSC's involvement will count for more.

    Another comment mentioned problems with their LJ subscription. I have subscribed since LJ was a thin little staple-bound magazine. I renewed my subscription yet again, a while ago, but the magazines stopped coming and I started getting bills. My AMEX card had been charged. So I figured no big deal, write email. I got a canned response stating that my payment had not been received. Responded that no, my card was charged, such and such date. No response. So I wrote a paper letter to their "customer service" address, with a copy of the AMEX statement and charge circled. No response. Sent another copy. No response. No magazines. Finally disputed it with AMEX, but too much time had passed.

    Final resort: looked up SSC's corporate records, sent a certified letter to their registered legal address, with copy of prior letter/statement copy, and said please either send my money back, or I will sue you. That got a a nearly INSTANT response, and a phone call. But no apology, just a request to discuss "this issue." They restarted my subscription.

    Given the poor customer service, the direction LJ has taken, and the behavior of SSC in this Linux Gazette issue, I won't be renewing my subscription either.

    Larry

  43. open linux gazette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the Linux Gazette people should treat this like a software fork and rename their project. Open Linux Gazette, or Gnu/Linux Gazette (hehe) might be good choices.

    Of course, if what the Linux Gazette people say is true, and all the volunteers who used to provide content to the SSC site are gone, then it is only a matter of time before the people interested in LG content migrate over to LG.net where the content is. In that case, SSC will be battling over the right to plow a desert.

    1. Re:open linux gazette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the Linux Gazette people should treat this like a software fork and rename their project. Open Linux Gazette, or Gnu/Linux Gazette (hehe) might be good choices.

      Those are both great examples of the kind of bad choices people who do not understand trademarks are making lately. You don't just slap "Open" or "GNU" in front of somebody else's trademark without permission from the owner of the trademark. If you do, you've forced them to come after you in order to protect their trademark.

  44. The USPTO search results (Filing Date: 10/28/03) by iconnor · · Score: 1

    Word Mark LINUX GAZETTE
    Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Publication of Journal. FIRST USE: 19950701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960801
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 78319880
    Filing Date October 28, 2003
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Owner (APPLICANT) Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc. CORPORATION 2208 NW Market St Suite 407 Seattle WASHINGTON 98107
    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  45. Your post brings me to conclude you didn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The words "Linux Gazette" were used to refer to a community publication which at some point a few years back SSC started to host for free.

    Now SSC has decided they have editorial control of the publication. They deleted articles from old issues, changed copyright notices, changed the format of the site, gave themselves titles, etc.

    Now they act all surprised and indignant that the original community publishers left and now they are threatening to sue them for trademark infringement... for using the term "Linux Gazette" -- the title of the original publication.

    I'm sorry but I don't think they have a valid trademark and any "defense" of it is outrageous.

    1. Re:Your post brings me to conclude you didn't RTFA by loucura! · · Score: 1

      Well, since they were providing hosting and SSC employees as editors I can see how they'd feel they had editorial control.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
  46. Please don't state that like you know it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's not and you must not be as familiar with the situation as you pretend to be.

    The publication is not owned nor did it start with SSC. SSC _hosted_ the publication for the last few years but they don't own it. Does that make sense? Even while SSC hosted it the original '"volunteer organisation"' continued to produce content.

    The only hijacking involved is SSC trying to remake the gazette into Slashdot.

    (Mods: please fix the "$: Informative" on the parent. It is not informative unless you consider FUD informative.)

  47. Yes, you are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't post before informing yourself about the situation. They didn't "make a copycat site". "They" are the original people who created the name, trademark, and all the editions. The company that hosted them for many years, SSC, decided that the publication was theirs to change in any way they wanted. Big surprise that the original people left. Saying The Answer Gang is a bunch of copycats is like saying Coke is copying Wal-Mart Cola. Thanks.

  48. You are correct about one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those two articles don't say anything interesting. That's because they are telling a weasle-worded corporate politically-correct version from only one side.

    I don't know why Slashdot picked that submission of this story. They should have included a link to http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html .

    Also check the comments on the .com page while they last... SSC tends to delete comments they don't like.

  49. You missed a few steps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    -2: Linux Gazette crew makes a nice community publication
    -1: They publish on their own for years.
    0: SSC offers to host the publication for no fee. ...

    6: SSC claims trademark ownership of "LinuxGazetee" because they feel that hosting it for years somehow entitles them to this.
    7: Idiots post on Slashdot without knowing anything.
    8: Profit ???

  50. Balanced articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know Slashdot doesn't claim or appear to be balanced but why couldn't those links be included in the article? Why only give SSC's side of the story?

  51. Article links by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry I didn't include all the links...

    I horked the submission... First time I ever felt strongly enough to make one, and I assumed that /. would do the research and such. oops.

    Now I know better, witness the multiple replies I have posted with better summaries, information and far better links!

    1. Re:Article links by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > I assumed that /. would do the research and such.

      --You *are* incredibly new at this, aren't you? :b

      --Fetch me a sky-hook, and be quick about it.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    2. Re:Article links by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 1

      > I assumed that /. would do the research and such.

      --You *are* incredibly new at this, aren't you? :b

      Oh yeah... Very.

      :

      I wish there were a way to edit articles - then I could have added in all the stuff I neglected to put in the main article. Adding it in comments works only until it scrolls down a bit. :(

      Next time, I'll do the work and not be a lazy n00b.

  52. SSC doesn't own the LG mark by David+Jao · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have no relationship with Linux Gazette other than once having contributed an article to LG (issue #35). My reading of the situation is that the trademark belongs to the originators of the magazine (i.e. the people who have recently left SSC), rather than the company that got involved almost a year later (i.e. SSC).

    I would be shocked and surprised if a hosting company could acquire trademark rights to a web site merely by hosting the web site. If this were so then Rackspace.com would find itself right now in possession of a very large number of trademark rights. Now I agree that SSC provided free hosting instead of paid hosting, but I fail to see how the fact that SSC provided its hosting for free changes anything.

    Likewise, although I realize SSC has contributed much effort to LG since SSC got involved with LG, I do not see these contributions establishing any trademark rights either. After all, *I* have contributed to LG before as well, and you don't see me going around asserting that I have trademark rights to LG.

    SSC should do the right thing and admit that it has no trademark rights to the name LG, relinquish the linuxgazette.com domain to the founders of LG, and publish their CMS under some other name. It is clear to me that LG is not a CMS, never has been a CMS, and that SSC is going to have a very difficult time arguing that the CMS is truer to the LG name than the rival publication.

    I should also point out that even if SSC somehow manages to win a legal case and keep the LG name, it will be blackballed by a sizable fraction (possibly even the majority) of the linux community, who, like me, view the founding volunteers of LG as the true keepers of the LG torch.

  53. Revision - with links! by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 1

    With apologies for the original state of the posting, here is a new, revised one with full links (at least, most of them).

    Summary:
    1. Linuxgazette.com - originally founded by a group of volunteers.
    2. SSC offered to host them, very generous and kind.
    3. SSC voluntarily took over editing at some point.
    4. Recently, SSC changed the entire look/feel of the site, trashed the articles at will, and basically started locking out the original founders.
    5. the founders took their content to linuxgazette.net
    6. SSC, in the form of linuxgazette.com, is unhappy with the .net folks for continuing to use the name. Sadly, SSC tried to trademark the name on Oct 23, 2003, the same day the founders announced the Fork.

    LWN: The Linux Gazette Forks

    LWN: Linux Gazette

    LG: Linux Gazette, Reborn

    LG: Histoy of Linux Gazette

    SSC: Publisher's comments

    SSC: Reply to publisher's comments

    SSC: Forum: Anyone prefer the old site?

    SSC: Forum: New Site!

    Note on the forum links, to change the sort method, you have to edit the URL. The sort the link goes to is the standard one, to change it to the expanded list, use mode=2, etc.

  54. a solution - names are pointers by r5t8i6y3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    who *legally* has the right to the "Linux Gazette" name seems controversial at the very least. that being the case this is how i would approach resolving the situation.

    if i were the Answer Gang i would offer SSC the option of having the Linux Gazette name in exchange for a prominent announcement (on the front page of linuxgazette.com) that due to a disagreement some of the contributors have created a new zine at linuxwhatever.???.

    this would allow the readers to choose what to read.

    if SSC doesn't agree to this i might persist in asserting ownership of the Linux Gazette name only as long as i didn't have to put any energy into doing so. if actions from SSC resulted in legal pressure to stop using the name i would let it go instead of putting up a fight (even though i might win the fight).

    i would also request support from readers to publicize the name and location of the new zine. i would encourage readers to contact other readers and linkers to the Linux Gazette and point them to the new website.

    in my personal experience a name is only a pointer to something that is real. when my good friend changed her name from alexis to ocean i didn't go looking for another friend named alexis.

    readers were drawn to the Linux Gazette because of the writing not because of the name. there may be a lull in readership for the Answer Gang due to a domain name change but this probably won't be for very long. it actually seems like a great opportunity for the Answer Gang to manifest something that is more in line with their visions.

    if there is a burden that is incurred as the result of the domain name change i suspect that there are some readers that would love to help minimize this burden.

    if you are part of the Answer Gang and are reading this i encourage you to ask yourself: will fighting to keep the Linux Gazette name bring me joy? will rebirthing our zine bring me joy?

    ask yourself these questions irrespective of whether or not you think each is achievable. if you choose to fight for the Linux Gazette name ask yourself these same questions again a day or a week later. if you regularly check-in with yourselves as this name controversy unfolds you will less likely find yourselves caught up in an activity that is draining.

    peace

    P.S.
    it isn't a surprise to me that the SSC is behaving the way it is. it is a traditional top-down hierarchical for-profit organization. it's raison d'etre is to make money (i understand that this may not have been the reason the SSC was created). if you remember this then all of their current actions make a bit more sense.

  55. It's not overblown. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong.

    #1. Some people started LG.
    #2. After a while, hosting was moved to SSC.
    #3. SSC decided it owned LG.
    #4. All of the original people left and continued making LG. (at LG.net)

    Read LWN.net for the real story.

  56. The new site sucks by Skapare · · Score: 1

    The new site sucks. The old site was better. I don't care what goes on behind the scenes for how content is managed, but the generated layout is crap. So it seems "CMS" means Content Mangling System.

    And look at that sponser ad ... "Microsoft Hosting Provider of the year ... Rackspace.Com" ... the place 20% of my spam comes from ... the place that totally ignores all spam complaints and lets spammers continue operating.

    So yeah, I can understand why the fork; SSC are doing things that really annoy me. But Theo didn't call his OS N3TBSD when he forked away from NetBSD; he picked a new name and called it OpenBSD. So I do think those who decided to make their own should have at least come up with a new name.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  57. Read the Forking articles! by Avihson · · Score: 1

    A group of volunteers that are the major source of content, if not the sole source of content are dissatisfied with the hosting companies decision to change the look/feel of the site it volunteered to host. (Note, hosting someone else's site does not give you editorial control over it, nor ownership of it!)

    These volunteers have build and shaped the site for most of its existance.

    The hosting company decides that it owns all the content on the site, and the copyright to all content on the site, no matter what the authors say. Hosting site goes as far as stripping copyright and removing authorship credit to articles as it reformats said articles to the new & improved format. Mirrors have the original articles in original format, some of these get changes in a alleged attempt to erase all references to the original copyright and formats.

    The Authors rebel, take their IP find new hosting site, respectfully request transefer of the Domain names to new hosting site, and register a DOTNET version of the domain in addition to the DOTCOM they with transfered.

    The Hosting company threatens for return of said IP that does not belong to it, corrects some but not all copyright infringement, and starts a FUD campaign.

    Slashdot Non-RTFA-ACs complain about the authors and copyright holders fighting for their rights.

    /. trolls bad-mouth the content authors for wanting credit for their work, and laud the Hosting company for trying to own the tradmark that other people have built over time. (Note, this is not an employment issue, where the employer claims IP and copyright to all works created by the corporate serf. This is a site that was published under OPL and similar licensing. Open Publication )

    1. Re:Read the Forking articles! by scumdamn · · Score: 1

      I read the articles linked but they didn't give that side of the story. This could be very much looked at as a fork of the site with the company "running" it wanting to keep their name.
      The article colored it as you are but gave no supporting documentation. I wish there were other linked articles that gave a more balanced view of what's happening with the issue.

  58. Trademark law (but we'd rather just publish LG) by rickmoen · · Score: 1
    Scarhill wrote:

    The registration date is October 28, 2003, even though Linus Gazette has been publishing since '95. Sounds like SSC decided to register the trademark only when they realized they had a problem. That registration might be succeptible to challenge.

    Or everyone could just let SSC, Inc. buy their $300 10-year (alleged) limited monopoly over a commercial brand identity (service mark), and just keep publishing Linux Gazette, because the one doesn't have a lot to do with the other.

    Our non-commercial monthly community magazine (Linux Gazette) moved by unanimous decision of its staff to http://linuxgazette.net/ as of the November 2003 issue. For seven of the preceding eight years, SSC, Inc. was kind enough to assist LG by giving it hosting and allowing some of its staff to assist production during work hours, for which we are quite grateful.

    Our decision to move was motivated by a number of things, including SSC's unexplained, unannounced, retroactive deletions from prior issues' articles, its stripping of authors' copyright notices and substitution of their own corporate one, and its proclaimed plans to make LG cease being a magazine and cease having editors, turning it into solely a dynamic Web site.

    After our move of the magazine to new quarters, SSC to our astonishment produced a November issue purporting to be Linux Gazette, immediately after our November issue went to press. (This was surprising because we'd been told they intended that monthly magazine issues cease.)

    To our further surprise, SSC, Inc. suddenly asserted posted "TM" symbols next to its copies of our magazine's logo, and started asserting in public that it owned trademark over the magazine "brand" identity. This was surprising because (1) SSC didn't start SSC, (2) SSC's assistance of founder John M. Fisk was specifically so that LG could remain a non-commercial community magazine, and (3) trademark is a commercial property right.

    We were further surprised to learn that SSC, the day following our notifying SSC of our departure, filed a US $300 fee and application form with the USA Patent and Trademark Office asking for recognition of "Linux Gazette" as a service mark of SSC, Inc., asserting they made first use of it in commerce in 1996. This was surprising for a number of reasons: (1) The magazine was founded in 1995, not 1996 (by John M. Fisk, not SSC). (2) To our knowledge, the "mark" has never been used in commerce (and the whole idea of SSC helping was to keep the magazine non-commercial). (3) The correct symbol to use to claim a service mark (the term for brand insignia of commercial services as opposed to commercial goods) is "SM", not "TM".

    Our understanding of trademark law is that, if the court judges a trade/service mark to be legitimately your property (which seems unlikely in this case) and if it's held to be validly established in commerce (ditto), then you're empowered to enjoin competing commercial interests from using that mark to sell a competing product/service, within the same trade/industry segment, in any way likely to confuse customers into thinking you (rather than the competitor) produced or endorsed it. The alleged owner is obliged to enforce this claim through civil litigation (or risk losing the mark, through it becoming generic). Federal registration of a claimed mark gives broader geographical coverage of this right.

    Please note that LG (at linuxgazette.net) remains a completely non-commercial magazine, which would appear to put its operations outside the normal scope of trademark law (leaving aside questions of validity and ownership). So far, we've received no legal threat from SSC, Inc., which is gratifying -- and we're concentrating on continuing to publish the magazine as we have for eight years. The December issue -- with a CSS stylesheet facelife and nicer logo -- will appear in a few days. As always, we're delighted

  59. "Chilling Effects" letter received by rickmoen · · Score: 1
    Wolfrider wrote: SSC should be BITCHslapped for trying to Bogart LG's body of work and the Whole Enchilada.

    Feel welcome to bitchslap them.

    The other shoe has just dropped: SSC evidently feels its easier and cheaper to try to seize our domain than to file a trademark-infringement lawsuit, and they've just delivered a cease & desist letter to our domain registrar, citing their bogus trademark claim. We are of course not sitting down for that, and are drafting a response just in case SSC causes the ICANN UDRP to be applied (as may be their intent). You can see a recent version of that draft at http://www.linuxgazette.com/node/view/134/228#228 (unless SSC deletes the post).

    And, yes, we have indeed posted the demand letter to the EFF's http://www.chillingeffects.org/ Web site. It'll be case #983, when available for display, there.

    Rick Moen
    Contributing Editor, Linux Gazette

    1. Re:"Chilling Effects" letter received by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Rick, I wish you guys all the best. Keep Taco and the rest of us informed any way you can. Linux Today (http://linuxtoday.com/) is also a good mouthpiece for the community, get the word out any way you can.

      --As a Slashdot reader with Excellent karma, I would *certainly* be against anyone trying to, say, DDOS the SSC and their related websites. I would also be publically against anyone who walked up to the SSC CEO and gave him the old pie-in-the-face gag. And anyone who started a letter-writing campaign to deluge the SSC with snail-mail and phone calls would certainly deserve a ringing condemnation from the trolls here at Slashdot.

      --Hang in there, TrueLinuxGazette.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    2. Re:"Chilling Effects" letter received by Goo.cc · · Score: 1

      Rick,

      After reading up on this on Slashdot and elsewhere, I have to say that I agree with your position. The fact that LG was in use before SSC became involved and was only registered as a trademark by SSC in October of this year, after the dispute started, shows duplicity on their part. That, coupled with the removal of copyright notices and the cease and desist letter to LG.net's registrar, makes me question the ethics of Linux Journal and its publisher.

      And maybe there is a more general lesson to be learned here, from both SSC and SCO: companies are inherently untrustworthy.