Slashdot Mirror
SSC vs LinuxGazette.net Continued
An anonymous reader writes "To update an earlier story about the pending battle between SSC and LinuxGazette.net, it seems SSC has taken to officially asserting a trademark on the term 'Linux Gazette' and is asking them to relinquish the domain name. Interesting to note that LinuxGazette.net has issue 97 out, while SSC doesn't."
... should desist early and change the site name. And I mean any of both sites, perhaps both!
A name has worth, but friendship when lost is very hard to reacquire. Besides, what's important in that name? Is it "Linux" or "Gazette"?
Don't waste time.
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 [lwn.net].
SSC is playing dirty pool not the other around.
Interesting to note that LinuxGazette.net has issue 97 out, while SSC doesn't
But who had the trademark first, or who used the name first, doesn't matter to the WIPO mediator. According to past history, the only thing that matters to WIPO, is who has more money.
Confusion about who owns what. This is just playing into the pockets of SCO who is spreading the "ownership is shady with Linux" meme.
Expect to see some major news outlet (Slashdot is not such) publish this news, and exaggerate it over the top.
You go out and start something a Open Source something.... it grows for a couple of years and then the company that was "donating" space decides that they own what you have created. Hey you're only a lowly volunteer.
if you are cool with that please send me copies of every idea you have had.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
> So let me get this straight:
/month)
.com site removed.
> A few volunteers decide they don't like the changes being made. They leave, and
> decide to open up a new site under exactly the same name, even using the same
> logo.
Nope, that is totally incorrect.
> And you think that should just be okay?
Of course not, but that isnt what happened.
Hmm.. the rest of your post is based on that one incorrect fact too, so no need to quote any of it and reply, as it has no relation to reality.
So to bring you up to date, replace the quoted 'misunderstanding' you thought above with this:
The volunteers created linux gazette. They hosted it at SSC instead of the millions of other ISPs, because the price was right ($0
Now SSC, being the hosting provider, filed for a trademark over their clients name and logo, and are now claiming to own it because they hosted it.
Fact of the matter is, no ISP or webhost owns their clients content as long as the ISP did not make the content.
That is what happened here.
Its a simple case of the web host thinking they own what other people upload to their site.
Personally I think the linux gazette volunteers need to sue SSC for copyright voilations (im sure they have past issues online) and in effect get most of the
First off.. let me tackle some of their "response points"
1. A product that is not commercial can still violate trademark. (Cite: www.uspto.gov)
2. LG stated that , in issue #8, they were going to e under the management of the SSC crew. Management implies content rights.
3. They state in their response that they feel a trademark does not exist. It does. It definately does. This can be checked at www.uspto.gov.
Whining like little brats will not solve the problem, and will only create more. LinuxGazette.net's response states that they will not change the name if they are forced to give up the domain, and that implies that they are perfectly willing to confuse the public about which is the real LG.
Trademark holder wins.
Why are the people who started Linux Gazette supposed to just abandon a brand they have worked hard to create? It has been their contributions of articles not SSC's dubious contribution of some free hosting. Though the Linux Gazette probably should have paid a token fee just to keep this sort of thing from happening $1 /year ).
The bottom line though is that the Linux Gazette people contributed to the brand. SSC did not. Therefore there exists no reason they should abandon it.
My two cents!