Slashdot Mirror
Australian Linux Trademark Holds Water
Seft writes "The Inquirer is running a story in response to the recent Linux trademark news in Australia which was previously covered on Slashdot. The story was dismissed as a hoax by many, but now it seems that Linus Torvalds is dead serious." John 'Maddog' Hall stated for the article that the move was not about getting a slice of anyone's action but purely to protect the quality of products that utilize the Linux name.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Does this mean Leon B can get his account back now?
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
At Groklaw they've got a pretty clear writeup as to everything behind it.
So, it's not about money, it's about control.
Deleted
Thats pretty wierd but im sure the story is just wrong or the writer has misconceptions.
http://www.uwarfare.com the Best Seattle Counterstirke Community
.. into the open condiment industry. After open source beer it one of many a possibility ;)
So this means, that Linux is not so free after all uh?
Maybe Linus thought of a new proffit plan:
1. Post a crappy kernel in Usenet and say it is free
as in freedom
2. Wait until everybody uses it
3. Enforce trademarks
4. Proffit
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yet another trademark. I'm getting tired of this.
Linus should comment on this personaly, till that happens its just FUD.
--gks
The linked article was short, uninformative, and I actually have a hard time believing it.
Does anybody have a link to something a little more informative? Like Linus' blog or something?
What's really going on here?
(and the mind-reading anti-script picture is "writhe." Spooky.)
When I received the letter re Linux it quite honestly scared the daylights out of me. There was this letter that started out saying "this is a notice, not a letter of demand" but then it goes on talking about moderately large sums of money and potential legal fees.
/execute/ on linux too (so linux was listed as a "compatible OS".
What was doubly annoying though was that the letter appeared to be sent out without checking to see if the recipient was applicable. None of the services or products that I had on my WWW site used the word "linux" in them, they simply happen to be able to
I still consider the email to be bordering very close to spam.
Next time, a registered letter in the post after each site is checked for relevance would be a far more reputable manner of distribution.
Can we fault Linus ?.. no. After all he's not charging for the software, but the use of his trademark by these companies.
Bad PR ?... yes, it's the "Free software" that gets hit, with people not realizing that this is about trademarks. You guys like intellectual property when it belongs to you" should also surface soon about Trademarks and Patents. But it's another question whether after ~9 years of trademarking, this is the first enforcing attempt, which might cast a bad shadow over the case. Trademarks have to be defended on first notice of offence.
All in all, blatant misuse of power for little monetary gain and lot of bad PR (at least in the short term). Promote "Linux" and kill parts of "Free" and "community" in there.
After all, the road to hell is paved with noble intentions.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Linus backs trademark charge, says 'Maddog'
By Sam Varghese
August 19, 2005 - 1:48PM
Trademarking the Linux name and charging for its commercial use world-wide is supported by its creator Linus Torvalds, a senior Linux community figure from the US says.
A recent letter sent to nearly 90 Australian companies, demanding payment of a sub-licence fee that can range from $A200 to $A5000 for use of the Linux name, caused considerable confusion and prompted speculation the fee was a scam.
But in an attempt to clarify the situation in Australia, Jon 'Maddog' Hall, the executive director of Linux International in the US, said a community organisation called Linux Australia had been nominated to handle the trademark issue in this country.
The Linux Mark Institute (LMI) handles trademark issues in the US. In other countries it nominates local bodies to look after things, he said.
Linux is a popular, free open-source operating system that runs on a number of hardware platforms, including PCs and Macintoshes.
Hall said while Torvalds and the LMI did not object to people using the Linux name for legitimate purposes, there were some who tried to limit or block other peoples' business by creating bogus trademark registries.
"We are not blocking anyone's business. If there is a single business out there that is blocked by this issue, please have them contact me," he said.
When asked how open source advocates could fight against the legitimising of software patents and yet charge fees for a trademark, Mr Hall said you couldn't create a product covered by a patent unless you licences it; with a trademark you could change the name and still sell the product.
"You certainly could create and distribute a useful product without having 'Linux' in the trademarked name," he said. "Debian comes to mind. Red Hat Software is another."
Linux Australia president Jonathan Oxer said while patents could stop people from doing the same thing, such as writing a piece of software that was functionally equivalent, trademarks regulated people who wanted to use an identity. "In effect, it's a measure to prevent identity theft," he said.
"Patents can be anti-competitive (or at least anti-productive) in the software world by preventing other people competing on a level playing field. They are specifically intended to grant a limited monopoly."
Oxer said trademarks did not prevent fair competition. "They don't stop anyone else going into business and doing the exact same thing as an existing company. What they do prevent is someone stealing the name of an existing product or company and then using that name to their benefit."
Hall said while the LMI could, in some cases, refuse to grant a sub-licence for use of the name, Torvalds had the final say.
He is the owner of the mark, it is his name. But my experience has been that Linus views this as him holding the mark for the community," he said.
The highest fee in the US is $US5000. "While to some the $US5000 fee may seem like a lot to pay on $US1 million of revenue, we point out that it is only on the revenue generated by the trademarked product, not the whole company (unless the whole company is called 'Linux XXXXXXX'), and there is no upper limit to the revenue that could be made," Hall said.
"We are not trying to limit the use of the name Linux. We are only asking that people help us protect the quality of the Linux name, and ultimately their trademark by both giving proper attribution (everyone) and by helping us fund the cause (the actual sub-licence holders)," he said.
Oh no! Recursive patents! I knew GNU's Not Unix was behind this!
MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
After all, some of the things said about the lawyer involved in this case were less than civilised or polite, and indeed a lot of posters had him mixed up with someone else of a similiar name. So, anyone willing to retract what they said?
I don't know what's really going on here, but a move like this should have begun with an announcement from Linus himself, preferrably not in the press but somewhere like LKML. It risks coming off as a retreat from the open spirit of Linux. "Hey, if I wanted to get shaken down and sued, I might as well go with the old pro, Microsoft."
my favorite sin
It costs about $100 per TVLinux show ( tapes, food, equipment), all paid by one person. TVLinux just wants to inform the TV public about open source and Linux. Do I drop 2-3 shows to pay for a "MARK". I think the rate should be $20-$50 for very small projects.
TVLinux
"Open Sauce" is a pun on "Open Source". The inquirer does that with almost everything. The Inquirer is generally pretty pro linux and linus but i'm sure they'll be slammed into the ground for daring to question linux/linus this one time. Seriously if Linus' plan is to show that companies acknowledge his trademark why not just ask for $1 each off them.
the move was not about getting a slice of anyone's action but purely to protect the quality of products that utilize the Linux name
You have to wonder, if in some whacky parallel universe Microsoft decided to release some form of Linux toolset or even a distro of their own, whether or not they'd end up getting permission to use the name or not..
While I'm sure John Hall is right that they're interested in protecting Linux from shoddy rubbish, if they were presented with an opportunity to block Microsoft by using this copyright I'm reasonably sure they'd put their ethics aside to score points (or dollars) against Bill.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Check here
Free as in Speech, as long as you don't use our Trademark.
But a lot of open source licenses have exactly this restriction, like the Apache License
And lots of others too, mainly extending from the time when Open Source was driven from universities Berkely, MIT who didn't want their 'Trademark' abused.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Tell me, my prince, what can I do for you?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
So how does paying money to some random entity protect quality? Why can't they just hand out trademark licenses for free to good Linux companies? I know they have expenses, but that still doesn't justify requiring payment for something which essentially belongs to the public.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Free Software doesn't mean you can ex post facto decide to get a trademark and then use it to charge a fee for use of the software. While it's quite a clever way to get around the GPL by restricting what people can do unless they pay, but it's certainly not consistant with the spirit of Free Software. Free Software doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the software unless the author decides he doesn't like it.
If it's true that Linus is behind this, then it's time to fork the kernel and remove all references to the word "Linux"...
I wonder if the enforcement emails were sent using PINE Is Not Elm?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
The mark has been in use for a very long time without any intervention by the said trademark holder.
This is like submarine patents.. everybody can use it and then suddenly you have to pay royalties.
I dont care if it is Linus or Ghandhi that does bad things.. This is a bad thing. Shame on you.
That's the danger of using automatic correction future.
An awful lot of people in the previous ./ coverage had problems with this.
Never get down on your knees , begging your client/customer to accept his great product. Let that beotch come to you! Mark Fleury has learnt it. and Lot's of other Open Sauce fired chicklets are following suit. It(some rights issues) will generate friction but eventually will give *that OS*(I don;t want him to sue me..heh heh) more credibility( by exercising control).
Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
It's amazing how uninformed so many slashdot posts on this are. Or maybe it's not amazing. If I interpret this correctly, the fee is $5000 per million revenue on a product that uses the trademark. If I don't sell $1million, I don't pay $5000. Furthermore, this has absolutely no effect on Free Software. As long as you comply with the GPL license, you can rename the Linux kernel and do whatever you want with it.
Linux is a very important identity for the software industry, and I'm glad someone out there is doing something to protect it from being vandalized and abused.
New Linux Tactics throws Slashdot Moderation into Chaos
(AP, Teh Intarnet) Before today moderation was simple: "-1 Against OSS/Linux", "+1 For Linux". "-1 Anti Free Software", "+1 Pro Free Software". But after a quick turnaround trademark infringement score in the late quarter, slashdot moderation is thrown into chaos. "I just don't get it" states TripMaster Monkey, a slashdot regular. "It's definitely +1 for Linux.. I mean, they're getting money and ensuring a quality product.. but.. It's definitely anti-free-software." The common moderation tactic during events such as these is to use "0 I do not know what the crowd is telling me to do" to ensure no one gets hurt. More on this as it develops..
twitter.com/gravitronic
The Linux trademark is simply being protected. For example, if you name your business, or try to trademark the name "Linux World" then you are asked to pay the fee. This fee is an acknowledgement that Linus owns the "Linux" trademark. This will allow the term "Linux" to stay open, and not be confused by someone's trademark of "Linux Smack Daddy LLC."
Get a free ipod.
A trademark on a name is not the same as a trademark on the thing it names.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Well, looks line Linux is about to pull an IMDB on us and start making money on the volunteers work. IMHO all successful open source projects will eventually end up being comercially owned and operated one way or another. The temptation is too big and the number of people who would like to profit from it is just too large.
It is opensource which matters here. A lot of quality projects without any funding will not be able to use the name linux anywmore this way since they just do not have $5000, or do not want to pay that.
Also $5000 does not garantee that their is a quality product. If you want to make sure that the Linux name is only connected to quality products, you do not reach that by asking money. THen you only garantee that some company gives you money. You will have to do a quality assurance program over the software to know if it then qualifies for your $5000 label. For a bit more extensive product this is not possible for only AU$5000. (Spent 100 hours on quality survey and you really start loosing money).
Mentioning what your product runs on or contains is not illegal either. In case of Linux, it is under the GPL, so if I do not tell what is in there, I am violating the GPL, if I tell what is in the product, I am violating the trademark.
Besides all that, having a trademark on a commonly used word is also pretty useless, as Microsoft found out the hard way in several countries: MS Windows (R) can be trademarked, but Windows could not since it is a too general word. Several countries even have laws about this kind of actions, and producers have to take care that their productname does not become a synonym for the group of products.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
It's only using the word 'Linux' in your company or product name that isn't free.
It's the case with most of the commercial Linux distributions that the code itself is Free, but the trademarks aren't. Linux is still free as anyone who wants to can fork the entire codebase, just as long as they use a different name.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
By simple logic:
1. If the Linux(tm) mark is not looked after, it will become junk.
2. "Looking after a mark" means getting a trademark and enforcing it.
3. Enforcing a trademark means preventing others from abusing it (using it for contradictory purposes, trying to trademark it themselves, etc.) All these abuses have happened with Linux.
4. This kind of enforcement costs money, and often quite a large amount of money.
5. It's normal that the people who use the Linux mark in their business should pay this, proportionally. They benefit from a well-protected mark.
Lincensing and paying money for things we're used to getting for free is a bit sad, but in the real world. people do mean and unkind things when money is involved. This means: if you like Linux, if your business depends on it, and if you want the word to mean anything at all, you should be willing to pay for this.
Ultimately, though, Linux will become (IMO) the commodity OS just as TCP/IP became the commodity networking protocol. Within 5-10 years, no-one will pay much attention to this.
From this perspective, asking licensing fees, even small ones, will slow down adoption. It creates one more barrier for people who have Linux-related business ideas.
What I would have done is to license the mark and pursue those who abuse it, but allow free licensing for those who comply with certain criteria - especially non-commercial open source projects.
My blog
wants a 10 carat Diamond Tennis Bracelet for the anniversary - that's where all this began.
It's a question of intentions from someone who has supposedly had quite the opposite intentions before... If it was about the "quality" of products using the linux name it would have been $100 not $5000 to use the trademark... Linus, i believe, just made a nice sized hole in his whole idea of free software and opensource.
But anyway...
Another poster's response that it's costly to spend 200,- USD for a volunteer is true! It should be maxium 5,- USD! It makes a big difference for a student/volunteer/third world engineer...
But it would be better to let it dilute and render every trademark protection in that sense impossible (including 'evil trademark use')! "Dilution" is an expensive word to call it when other people use your trademark without license, it renders a trademark unenforcable. Sure, it would mean that a porn site calling itself 'The Linux Gang Bang' wouldn't be a problem. But - seriously - do you really believe anybody would be interested in calling it like that? And what would be the problem with that?
Tradmark dilution is already there - virtually no Linux consulting shop has a license - nowhere, worldwide. Why has Maddog choosen this moment to change this and use Australia as a testing ground?
Is his VA Linux-stock-owned money running low? And is that the reason why Larry tried to push Slashdot to post Maddog's reply?
Maybe we find out in a next episode of Slashdot ;-)
But if Linus really cares about the community, letting the trademark dilute is certainly the best option availble!
and I don't believe them. Flame away if you want, but the explanation doesn't answer all of my questions, and I'm still not convinced.
Yeah, its going to sting a little (well, to the tune of $200 for os projects, more if you are makeing cash from it) but i see this as a "Good Thing"(R)(C). Not only does it help to stop some of the more iritateing "linux" mags/sites out there that just run doom/gloom articles about linux, but I am assumeing the funds raised from this will not only go towards bettering the protection of the linux trademark, but i would hope that it would also be spent on some awareness programs (read: ad campeigns) to help spread the real information to those that should hear it.
All comes down to if this is a money grab by Linus or if it is some grand plan. I would hope the latter.
...
Maddog? I hate that name. I hate it, you hear? Nobody calls me "Maddog", especially not some duded-up, egg-sucking gutter trash.
As for the actual claim of trademark ... From what I understand of trademark law it should be rejected on the grounds that it wasn't protected. I bought my first set of linux cds from a company called Linux System Laboratories nearly ten years ago. It bodes badly for Linus in Australia.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Excellent point:
Speaking of abusing someone's good name, Jeremy Malcolm, the attorney in charge of sending out the licensing letters in Australia, has a long history of voluntary and pro bono work for the Internet and open source communities. This includes serving on the boards of the Internet Society of Australia, the Western Australian Internet Association, Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Society of Linux Professionals (WA) and the Australian Public Access Network Association. He also received the Community Award in the 2004 AUUG Australian Open Source Awards for outstanding contribution to the understanding of para-technical and legal issues surrounding open source within the Australian context. He isn't a Scientologist and never has been, by the way, although he believes in freedom of religion for all.
Don't you hate it when the mainstream media doesn't bother to check their facts? Why do what they do, then? The community stands for ethics, does it not?
- Groklaw article
As much as we techies usually investigate things, we kind of dropped the ball on this one.
Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
That is still BS from at least the general community viewpoint that the Linux name was trademarked to keep it out of the hands of would-be opportunists that would gouge the community. I guess the community faith here has been broken again, but by Linus himself? What is next, GNU being trademarked (it is) and similar fees for GNU projects?
Licensing fees like this only serve one purpose: To keep potential competition out of the marketplace and to "raise the bar" for any potential entrants. This is totally against anything the Free Software/Open Source community has ever stood for, and is taking from the community instead of giving back. That is why there is such resistance to this idea, and the open hostility. It is also a major example of what is wrong with the computer industry in general, where this sort of practice is commonly accepted as a normal activity.
MOD PARENT UP -nt-
I think this is really dumb. All kinds of people use the *Linux" name for all sorts of things. I know Linus is not into freedom, but come on. This just seems jack booted to me.
I go to college
That makes me so cool
I live in a dorm
and show off by the pool
I join the right clubs
just to build an impression
I block out thinking
it won't get me ahead
My ambition in life
is to look good on paper
all I want is a slot
IN THE LINUX CORPORATION!!
It is not clear
1. why the individual spent 250,000 USD (?) of his own money, that's a lot
2. why not liscense for $1.
3. that GPL-liscensed software is still not free to sell if it has linux in the name, and whether any payment for a mark is passed on to forkers
4. why this was not sent through the community first. Linus may have started things and still have a hand in the kernel, but the value of the trademark is mostly I would imagine NOT due to him personally.
5. how exactly this protects quality of linux products. it's not like we get the source code or anything.
6. why something that started as a self-defense action now has to make enough money to pay for pricey executives
7. I'm a software developer too, what does this mean to me? Not that I was going to call anything I make linux but now I'm a little worried. What if I use something with linux in the name even? etc.
8. In general this sounds really boneheaded can you geek this down for me? Who asked this wonderful person to spend so much money of his own without telling anybody (or documenting it?) and now hold the world for ransom to pay for this expensive habit? (Profit!)
Basically if the money is not going to Linus then who is it going to, and likewise why does it have to go anywhere.
I think it's time we introduced Linus to Marty Fromme, the Sausage King of Chicago!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Dude, what the fuck are you blathering about?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
BTW, PJ on GrokLaw has an interesting piece on this issue.
As I understand the matter, Linus gets the massive sum of $0 from Linux. From this enormous war chest, he has to spend money on lawyers and C&D letters defending the use of the registered trade name; if he doesn't defend it, the trademark is lost, and anyone can use the name for any purpose they like, good or bad (as, for example, a hypothetical Microsoft Linux that had nothing to do with real Linux and just served to fragment the community).
Clearly, there is good reason for SOMEONE to protect the use of the Linux name, and this takes money. The numbers I've seen for the fees being charged to license the name for trade use do not appear unreasonable (and if you're using a Linux product someone else produced, you don't pay anything, plus there are the aforementioned fair-use exceptions), the folks the money goes to are an independent foundation that only manages the trade mark (nobody is being enriched by it), and there doesn't seem to be any other viable alternative if the trademark is to be protected from misuse.
With this in mind, I don't find Linus' actions the least bit disturbing or unreasonable.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Hate it when he's right!
jaz.
From my reading of this, our Linux User's Group will be on the line for $200/year. Perhaps a large LUG can afford that, but ours sure can't.
Maybe we should all fork over $699 to somebody's lawyers as well.
Wait, is this water as in water, or water as in beer?
With the Australians, it's hard to tell the difference...
"A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
Where can I turn for a free OS? Obviously anything with Linux in the title out.
I checked out FreeOS [freeos.com] but most of their stuff is Linux or some very arcane OS.
I'm fast running out of hope. Where can I turn now?
Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora, or any of the other of thousands of distros without linux in the name? That even assuming the ones with linux actually in their name decided to pass the (minimal) cost on to their users.
So what happens if I make something called "Slashdot Linux" which aims at optimizing the braining-draining newreading experience. I'm in Canada, but I put it online so perhaps somebody in Australia can download it.
Am I infringing on the AU trademark, or am I safe because neither my business nor my person is located in Australia
How about you go ahead and use Linux, but just not call it Linux?
This sounds very similar to the letters companies such as the RIAA would send out. That is, they would find a song called something like "Virgin Madonna.mp3" on a website, and supeona the closure of that site for having copyrighted material (even though the mp3 was actually completely unrelated to the Madonna song, maybe it was talking about the religious madonna, not the pop-star).
One of the parts of having a body that collects a fee or enforces the trademark for such things should be proper procedure. Generic messages and threatening letters is not proper procedure.
It's worth noting that even if LMI's "Linux" trademark licensing fees survive the current controversy, it's the brand name "Linux (TM)" they're controlling, not the source code of Linux (which remains controlled solely by the GPL).
This action might cause people to rebrand the Linux source with other names, which trademark has no effect on. That development might have the effect of creating lots of "stealth Linux": products which are really Linux "under the hood", but distributed under other names. One effect could be to dilute the strength of the "Linux" brand, sharing its mindshare among many other minor brands. Another effect could be to create many fronts against which anti-"Linux" FUD would have to attack, by name, while the underlying quality of the product would indirectly contribute to "Linux" ("Brandix is really just Linux, you know").
But another possibility lies between: amidst the "brand diaspora", a competing brand could emerge, possibly even stronger than Linux. Especially without the negative brand baggage that Linux does have. Unlike when, say, Red Hat established a strong brand on a Linux branded product, which built both brands equally. Red Hat's success contributed to Linux being taken seriously. But if Brandix benefitted from the accumulated value of the Linux product (and obeyed the GPL), but avoided all mention of "Linux", and delivered outstanding value to the market, it might eventually eclipse the Linux brand. Currently, such action would produce such outcry from Linx devotees that it would hurt the Brandix brand equity. But after companies are forced to decide whether to pay fees to build someone else's Linux brand, such outcry would be minimized, and legitimately countered. Brandix could win much of Linux's momentum.
If the LMI trademark actions are really backed by Torvalds (who owns the Linux mark), we'll get a chance to see how it plays out. None of the coverage we've seen on Slashdot (or that I've seen elsewhere) indictes whether LMI, or Maddog, is really a loose cannon - taking unwarranted, even unauthorized risks with Torvalds' Linux brand strategy. But the risk is now undertaken. We'll get to learn a lot, no matter how this plays out.
--
make install -not war
I say absolute bollocks to anyone who tries to justify trademarking the name Linux. IMO even Linus does not have a claim to the name, as it was others that named it, so its inception is a play on the trademark UNIX coupled with the original authors name. Besides that, he has not protected the term, and IIRC he stated that he would not do this. (Anyone remember the details?)
So why the change of tune? Because the name is so valuable? There is plenty of case history to indicate that a company can not cash in on a term that has become popular, and has fallen into general use. Why the double standards when it comes to Linux? Because something bad could be associated with Linux? I would prefer to see the name Linux used out of context, thank you very much. Something rotten is happening right now; expect more of the same to come if this is not reversed.
I am sure that many of us felt that Linux was not able to be owned by any one person; now it is, and fee's are being charged. The sad part about this is that it will reduce the expectation that companies need to be part of the community; instead they will pay their dues and expect the developers to jump when they have a problem.
Paying SCO $699 sounds like the better option in hindsight.
I know its not that simple, but I expected the resolution of the trademark dispute to mean that it was now in good hands, and that they would either let it slip into the public domain to avoid the problem re-occuring, or would fight the most obvious of infringements with the full backing of the community.
(UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group).
There have been cases that tested things like this... if I were to write an article, video, etc titled "Windows Vs Linux" and detail the similarities/differences between the two I shouldn't be charged by either MS or AUSLinux. You can't get sued (successfully) in most cases for just mentioning something (unless it happens to be the olympics, it seems)
If I were to write a book on "how to learn Linux in 10 days" or moreso "Linux for Aussies" I might be, however...
Slackware - first line of their webiste says "The Slackware Linux Project"
Debian - The 2nd line of their says "Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS"
Gentoo - First line of their website "We produce Gentoo Linux, a special flavor of Linux"
Ubuntu - Their website IS "ubuntulinux.org"
Suse - First line of their website says "SUSE LINUX Professional 9.3"
Fedora - Ok you've got me here. No where on their site can I find the word Linux in their name. However Red Hat's treatment of CentOS should be enough of a worry to not use something they fully sponor and use for alpha testing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
So we're still without a free OS again.
Did your RTFA? You cannot use Linux without paying a fee to this weird corporation Linus set up.
Everything with the word Linux in it must pay a fee. All of these Linux distros are now going to have to cough up the money and we're going to have to pay for that.
This is outrageous.
Do you PINE for the good old days when men were men and used real mail clients?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
How does demanding royalties on the use of a trademark do anything significant about controlling quality, other than ensuring the licensee has deep pockets?
Please understand that it costs hundred of thousands of dollars in legal fees to simply maintain and protect the trademark and they have to show that they are protecting that trademark or lose it. They are basically forced to do this. Someone already tried to hijack the trademark and force everyone to PAY TO USE Linux. If they dont do it then someone else will simply hijack it. If you make a billion dollars using Linux in the NAME of your product what is $5000? The money has to come from somewhere to pay for this. As a company that profits from the WORD Linux in your comany name would you rather be spending a lot more money defending yourself from rogue lawsuits by unscrewpulous characters who hijacked the linux name or just pay the $200-$5000 and let them worry about defending it so u can go on with our business Which one would you chose ?
[Background: I've been reading /. for many years, and never felt the need to register and comment... until today].
Are the above posts really representative of the opions of most of us? It seems to me I've seldom seen so many confused people...
- "the story is just wrong", "this is just FUD"
Well, it's not... hasn't enough material been presented to convince you?
- "what is really going on here?"
This is a simple trademark defense. [The simplest possible explanation is the most likely one.]
- "blatant misuse of power"
Ehm, no... see above.
- "The mark has been in use for a very long time without any intervention by the said trademark holder."
Do you get the part that you must defend your trademark or you can lose it?
"Also $5000 does not garantee that their is a quality product."
The fee pays for the quality of the trademark, not the product.
"why not liscense for $1."
Because the license fees need to be reasonable. When push comes to shove, your defense of the trademark needs to be defended in court. Token effort is likely not going to be deemed sufficient.
'nuff said...
So some guy typos and writes "Open Saurce". He then runs spellcheck and blindly accepts all of the checker's first recommendations, including the one to change "Saurce" to "Sauce". I'd bet money that that's how it happened.
Unfortunately, Linus' Australian trade mark agent is incompetent. The history of the "Linux" TM application from the Australian trade marks office ...
17-AUG-2005 Exam Response Correspondence
28-JUL-2005 Extend acceptance date (was 07/08/2005 ) Update
20-JUL-2005 Extension of time Correspondence
07-JUN-2005 No response to 1st Report within 12 mths Update
... shows that the first examiners' report for the mark went unanswered for 12 months(!!) Now the agent is having to pay extension fees to keep the application alive. (Hope those extension fees aren't being passed on to LMI -- if so, they should get themselves a new TM agent).
I propose we use the term Jimux.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Isn't it too late? Hasn't Linux, as a brand name, been unprotected and unenforced for too long? I'm guessing that it's so, and that this trademark litigation initiative will run into a brick wall in court if someone elects to challenge it. Thoughts?
C//
Me suspects that either a) YOU did not read the article, or b) YOU did not understand it.
I reiterate the earlier reply to your original comment
"Dude, what the fuck are you blathering about?"
Why does he need to make people pay to "protect" the trademark it? (Not for funds, because he already has it and can get it in other ways.) Can't he just "license" it for free if he wants "precedents" to people licensing it?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816
SlashDot, Check./ 1154231
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/19
LinuxMark, Check.
http://www.linuxmark.org/what_if.html
Hmm, something is missing. LINUS' words?, no, LKML, nope, Blog Entry, nada, maybe OSDL, Hmmm
http://osdl.org/about_osdl/legal/lldf
Why doesn't this cover the Trademark Maintenance Fees? Do they (OSDL) pay Trademark licenses?
Help me Linus, We need you to tell us why "you" don't pay your lawyers and why we should.
This whole thing is unfortunate FUD-food. I'm even having a hard time deciding on good vs evil on this one. Is the name worth 200 bucks to me, hmmm. The Distro OS is, The kernel only, I dunno man. Now every OS vendor has to pay or make up a new name. I think I'll call mine NewYorknix there, now I'm in the clear.
Seriously, We need you guidance Mr. T.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Why on earth is there an upper limit on contributions and no lower one? Wouldn't it be far easier and cheaper to administer this if only really big companies had to pay?
Why not just say that if your Linux related turnover exceeds $1bn a year you have to pay it all, and therfore let IBM pick up the tab (or better still simply ask them to use their legal team to defend the trademark)?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Let me simplyfy this for you. If you don't trademark your name then I can come along and trademark it then force everyone to pay me $$$$$$$ to use it correct ? Now it cost $$$ maintain trademarks correct? You lose your tradmarks if you don't protect them correct? It costs $$$ to protect them right ? So Redhat Linux makes millions of dollars on the name Linux. So lets say Linus does not maintain and protect the trademark and I come along and register the trademark Linux(r) And force your company, RedHat etc to pay me 30% of all company revenues via expensive lawsuits that you or Redhat now have to defend against. Tell me. What would be cheaper for Redhat ? $5000? or the huddreds of thousands in legal fees to defend against this type of garbage. This is what they are trying to prevent. Some moron already tried this and it cost a lot of $$$ to get it fixed. They are protecting you from some 'not very nice' people out there. Either Linux ignores the trademark or he protects it. It costs a lot to do this and lawyers and trademarks are not cheap. You pay $5000 and let them worry about defending the name linux instead of you worrying about that. You get to go on and run your business. so switching to a competing product would be cutting of your nose to spite your face. I don't believe that action would be or particularly pleasant for that matter. Have a nice day.
How about FreeBSD? Come taste the freedom!
for the last time.
this has to happen or else the word "linux" means absolutely nothing and is fair game by everyone/anything..
ie: mico$$$ft releases "window ZP built upon the Linux kernel"..
not really built with linux kernel but they can say that. without the TM being registered/charged/enforced linus and everyone else is _LEGALLY_ powerless to do anything about it.
you will soon be applying for jobs where they list Linux as a requirement, only to find its a bunch of windows ZP boxens. argument ensues as to what the word "linux" really means.
This is to safeguard YOU!. as someone makes a diet-soft drink called "linux". and you have to explain to your parents that you work with the OS not the soda.
there will be a new geek saying:
"No not _that_ linux, the other one!".
most stuff is going to be fair use.
for the rest (if you dont have $200/year and you depend/like your project/business to use the name "linux", you should get another business or change your name)...
--jboss
So Linus wants to save everyone from the big bad trademark stealing meanies:
/. would be amoung the most amused by it... If we watched that kind of thing of course.
Since 1995, when an unfortunate incident in the United States showed us that the world is not made of altruistic people and companies, Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark. At that time an entity had obtained a US trademark on the word "Linux", and was trying to obtain twenty-five percent of the REVENUES of companies that had the word "Linux" in their name, or in their product names. Instead of all the member companies fighting this battle individually, Linux International fought it and won.
Can I call Bullshit yet?
If this isn't about money, just place the trademark in the public domain and let be free.. You know, free as in speech.
(and to the other argument) Is the community harmed if there is a "pornography attractor" named "Linux Legged Larry?" Nope. Heck, most of the readers of
If all the ad nausium chatter about "Free" software means anything, why not put it in the public domain?
as I see it, is that for so long now we've all taken 'ownership' of linux. We've all thought, "It's my OS" (and the FOSS rhetoric only reinforces this notion.) So we change some stuff around and call it "AG's Linux" or something. And it was good because we knew that no one was breaking any laws with their shiny new CD's. Now that's been cast into doubt and this geek anyways hates to have to wonder about the legality of things all the time.
People don't always (never) agree on what is an appropriate change to make however. So if someone made a distro with a custom pr0n searching tool and they call it the "Pr0n Linux Distro" then I'm sure someone will think that they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
I'm probably not making myself clear, but when I try to see what makes my hackles rise when I read this, this is all I can come up with.
No you dimwit! You can use Linux just fine! You can distribute Linux just fine! You can hack Linux just fine! No-one is stopping you!
What does this thing mean? It means that companies that use the word "Linux" in their name or in the name of their product are going to have to pay a modest fee. How much? Well, if their revenue exceeds 1 million, they have to pay a whopping $5.000. If the revenues are lower, the price is lower. $5.000 is the amount Red Hat, Novell and the like are expected to pay. For some reason I don't see them going out of business because of that. Nor do I see them raising their prices to get back that $5.000.
An example: Suppose I set up a company called "Car PC Inc." I run my entire business on Linux, and my product (called "Car PC") is based on Linux. How much would I have to pay? Zero. How much would I have to pay if my revenue was 10 billion? Zero. How much would I have to pay if my revenue was 10 billion, and my company was called "Linux Car PC Inc."? $5.000.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Maybe I can help you understand what the the first guy was "blathering" about.
If you use the word linux you must now pay for it. If you're the XYZ hosting company, you can't say in your ads "the XYZ hosting company uses Debian GNU/Linux servers" unless you pay this fee. If you're Computer Geek Consultants, you can't say "We provide the best Linux Consultants" without paying a fee.
This is worse than anything Micro$oft could dream up. I agree with the OP that this is a dark day in the history of linux. There's a post far above that is modded +2 funny -
> 1. Post a crappy kernel in Usenet and say it is
> free as in freedom
> 2. Wait until everybody uses it
> 3. Enforce trademarks
> 4. Proffit
Their spelling is about as poor as mine, but it's not a funny comment. It is the truth and should be modded insightful.
It was great while it lasted. I have already started moving our severs to FreeBSD. I can only hope this will be a smooth transistion and we can remove the word Linux from all of our company lit before Linus sicks his lawyers on us. Shame on Linus.
The problem here is not that Linux is suddenly "un-free" (it's not). The problem here is that you have no clue what this whole thing is about.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Your argument sounds good but it falls apart instantly.
If he just places the trademark in the PD then the whole debate is over. Let it be free as the saying goes.
Ethical, necessary, whatever you want to call it or justify it as, frankly it's just more B.S. to deal with, no thanks....
An administrator does not "administrate", he or she "administers".
Book 'm Danno
What no-one seems to have mentioned, is that a trademark has an owner and a value. It can be sold and bought. Such a transaction is between the buyer and the seller, and not by democratic vote. In my opinion, placing the ownership of the Linux mark with any single organisation is a huge mistake. If MS offers the current owner $10 Mil (or whatever it takes) for the trademark, and the owner accepts the purchase price, MS will own the Linux trademark. QED
Switch to FreeBSD and enjoy freedom...
Hi,
I was a little upset answering the above post, so for those of you who are interested, the URL is http://linuxmark.org/
Thanks,
maddog
Listen, folks, these are business people who are motivated by profit. Nothing wrong with that, except when they are making a profit from other peoples efforts without their permission. Hell; in the case of Redhat, they get to pay a portion of their revenue for the privelege of having contributes a considerable portion of the value of a typical GNU/Linux system.
I still want to know who protects the community from the trademark owners when the owners say "the hell with it" and decide to sell the mark to MS to defray costs.
How does this apply to Linux User Groups (i.e. "My Town Linux User Group")? If I read the Groklaw article correctly, wouldn't they fall under the $200 / year non-profit category?
"Linux", as a name, is a trademark. Trademarks MUST be defended or they are lost. I don't know about you, but I want "Linux" to mean something, and not become a generic term that any jackass could use to describe anything at all.
I don't know how you jumped to the erroneous conclusion that protecting a trademark implies charging for the use of copyrighted software. Copyright and trademark are two distinct legal concepts; that's why the names differ.
The Linux kernel is copyrighted and the copyright holders have licensed it under the terms of the GPL. The GPL grants rights to redistribute the software, rights that you would not otherwise have under copyright. The GPL does not give you permission to USE the software, because copyright already gives you that. There is no fee for the use of Linux.
Let me repeat that, since you got it wrong. THERE IS NO FEE FOR THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
There MAY be a fee if you want to call something Linux. Firstly, the most important part is that what you call Linux has to be Linux. That's what trademarks are all about. Cut down on confusion and fraud.
Secondly, if you are trading in Linux, then you should pay the fee for the use of the name. In other words, you need a sublicense if you want to use "Linux" as part of your own trademark.
Suppose that you've put together something called "Delphi Linux". You wouldn't want other people to use that name for something else. By using that name, you have created a trademark. You may wish to register it for greater legal protection, but the mark has some protection just from being the first active use in that area.
But you can't use the "Linux" trademark in your own trademark without permission. It's not nice to steal someone's name.
But you can use "Linux" as a description, under fair use. So you can call your own thing "Delphix", and describe it as based on Linux, if it really is. In other words, you don't need any permission or fee to use the Linux trademark to identify Linux.
There is no fee to use the Linux trademark to identify Linux.
There is no fee to use Linux.
There is only a fee if you want to use Linux as part of your own trademark. If you don't want to pay the fee, then use a different name.
The guy has put nigh on 15 years into Linux. Is he not entitled, to kick back and relax for a while, forget about kernels, buy a tropical island, hire a team of permanent hookers for his island, get high all the time, and enjoy the fruits of his labour?
Who are you to criticise him if he does this? What are you, a Slashdot n00b? When Apple or Linus does it, it is not wrong!
Piss of you M$ troll!
Thank you, I'm here all week.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Linus owns the Linux(R) trademark since at least 1995, and he has been enforcing it as well. This is not news. The news is the idiotic approach (which may be due to idiotic Australian laws) to registering the Linux trademark in Australia.
I started reading hoping it was a joke.
Now I'm in a position I can't tell anyone that my software supports Linux(C)(R)(TM)(RIAA) without paying a fee.
Total bait and switch.
BTW, I do think Linux has better not become a generic name, but only if this comes at a very low cost. $200/yr is too much for some non-profit Linux distros that call themselves something-Linux and for some user groups, etc., and IMHO it is not worth it to make some active community members to pay so much just to prevent the possibility that some sleazyballs would misuse the name (which would be about as serious as a GPL violation, which poses no immediate danger, unlike a SCO-style copyright or patent lawsuit). What I really care about is that no one else can register the trademark and attempting to charge everyone that wants to use it, like what had happened previously, and I don't think we need to go that far merely to prevent THIS.
HYPERTHETICAL** This is a what would be possible if Linus fails to register and protect the trademark linux. Lets just say Linux was never registered as a trademark. This is they type of event that can happen. This is not a real letter just Hyperthetical.
From: Linus Torvalds.
To: The Community
I regret to have to inform all of you that due to my failure to register the trademark Linux, A company called The SCO Group has registered the trademark and is now demanding that we cease and desist using the word Linux. They have sent out letters to several companies demanding 30% of all revenues. It is going to cost millions of dollars to defend this in court and I dont have that cash, It costs several hundred thousand dollars to register and prove that I am protecting that trademark and I dont have that cash either, and I dont want to burden the community with those expenses, Also I'm a coder not a lawyer and would rather just not be bothered with all of that lawyer stuff. It would take teams of people and lawyers to enforce a worldwide trademark and I just dont have the time nor funds for that. Besides in the spririt of true freedom I am going to change the name from Linux to a new name the community decides. In the spirit of futher freedom once we decide on a new name I will also refuse to register the trademark and protect that new name. So even SCO will be free to trademark our new name on their behalf at their free will. And be free to make new demands on our new name. Now that is true freedom. Have a nice day.Linus.
I only use SMTP commands typed from the command line.
Clients? What are those? People who pay money to have you do stuff?
I don't have any of those either.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You guys have to understand that they're merely trying to protect the Linux name...
Without this protection, there's nothing stopping a company from releasing a crappy OS under the title "Linux 2007", and having it sell by the millions, making lots of money off the Linux name (while trashing the name at the same time since the OS is crap).
Likewise, that same company could release the same OS as something like "Super-Duper OS" and sell absolutely none because it's crappy and has no brand recognition.
Linux is liscensing its name to companies that include "Linux" in their product names or company titles, to prevent the Linux name from being ruined. Also, under most trademark law, you have to show reasonable attempt to protect your trademark or you will lose rights to it (and other companies can claim it). It's merely about protecting their name.
This is about using the word "Linux" the name of the company or name of the product. If you have a company called "The Computer Guys", and say that "yes, we support Linux", you are NOT required to pay a thing. But if you called your company "The Linux-guys" you would have to pay.
Really, read about it yourself: . From the website:
"Trademarks: Use Requiring A Sublicense.
On the other hand, if you plan to market a Linux - based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a low-cost sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government."
So if your trademark (name of the company or product) containss the word "Linux", you have to pay. If it doesn't, and you merely tell everyone that "this product is based on Linux" (for example), you do not have to pay, since the word "linux" is not in the name of the product.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The Linux(R) trademark has been registered for a long time in many countries all over the world. Linus, through Linux International, has been enforcing this consistently, as required by Trademark law.
Linux is not currently a registered trademark in Australia. The newly formed LMI (Linux Mark Institute) has started the process of registering the trademark. Part of the process, aparently, is to gather evidence/acceptance from existing companies using Linux in their products/names as to the proposed registration of Linux as a trademark belonging to Linus Torvalds.
So here is where things got screwed up. The lawyer (Jeremy), who is handling the process, used a RIAA-like method of sending letters to anyone and everyone who mentions Linux on their web site. While the letters are probably correctly formed, and cover all the necessary points from a legal standpoint, the legalese used and the spam-like method of distributing them caused this uproar.
It is important to realise that the combination of not properly choosing the recepients and the lack of explanation in plain English (or would that be "plain 'strain"? :-) of what the letters mean and that no money is being required, does make an important issue. It is a screw-up, and the involved should own up to it.
I think LMI and Jeremy should produce a point by point explanation of what is required by Australian law to register the Linux trademark, and send it with an apology to all who received the original letter. I also think that Jeremy should excuse himself from handling this, and LMI should find another lawyer to deal with the process.
I think that all of this trademark enforcement is really a bad move.
I am sure that Microsoft and other commercial software companies would happily make the argument that it takes a lot of capital ( programmers, equipment, facilities, R&D) to develop, distribute and support quality software. Therefore you should expect to pay for it. This idea of charging users to for the purpose of enforcing the trademark rights just feeds into that argument (you have to charge for it to expect quality).
It has been pointed out in other posts that Linux is a play on someone elses trademark already. And, what does the user community gain from enforcing the Linux trademark anyway? It's not going to change how the kernel is developed and distributed ( unless charging for the name alienates its developers and contributers ). If Linux continues to enjoy success or ultimately ceases to exist, it won't be because of someone misusing or abusing the trademark. This all seems to have more to do with ego than the advancement of quality FOSS.
I suggest that all future reference to Linux be "*inux" or the "GNU Kernel". Just as the *inux community has referred to the Unix community as *nix since its inception. Then all of the trademark arguments are moot and the community can move on.
Please Linus, tell us how this is good for FOSS.
You are incorrect sir by stating that a hosting company cannot use the word linux in their promotional materials just put the little (r) beside the word linux like so Linux(r). Just like you have to do with BSD UNIX(r) If you are a hosting company or any other company you can still state we use Debian Linux(r) or Novell(r) Netware(tm). That is besides the point. What you cannot do sir is take say a BSD distribution and call it Linux. or Use the word Linux as a PRODUCT NAME or COMPANY NAME. How does this affect your company sir? do you manufacture products called Linux? Does your company have the term Linux in its name? If so then I should inform you that switching to BSD will not help your situation as it costs a whole lot more to License the UNIX(r) trademark than the Linux trademark. You don't think the BSD folks would be amused if someone came along and took Debian Linux and marketed it as Debian BSD UNIX(r) do you? So what is the differnce here? it only applies to companies that market products based on the name Linux. So are you going to quit using google too? They will charge your company a whole lot more than $5000max if it tried to setup a seach engine called "google for kids" I dont even think they would allow it. What about M$ and Lindows ? Did you forget about that ? Lindows was not a trademark of M$ when they got dragged through the mud. Making critical OS/Platform migration decisions while wallowing about in complete ignorance can adversly affect your company. One would suggest you read up on trademarks a little bit more before making anymore critcal business decisions.
Linux is rightly pissed about the GNU/Linux name grab.
He's also annoyed at Richard at dissing Linux for GNU/Hurd.
So he's going to make the GNU/FSF pay for their use of Linux. SWEEEET.
GNU/take GNU/that, GNU/biotches!
FTFA: "the move is not to get a slice of any one's action, nor was not about trying limit the use of the name Linux"
Aha! So they are trying to limit the use of the name.
Oh those aussees. They'll never learn. hee heee hee
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
Hopefully, the number of incorrect uses of the trademark should be very few compared to the number of correct uses, maybe even zero. Still, registering trademarks in 200 different jurisdictions costs money, and Linus can't pay for that out of his own pocket (other individuals have already contributed substantial amounts personally to defend the Linux trademark against incorrect use, before the Linux Mark Institute was established). Therefore anybody using the trademark correctly in their business should help pay for the administration.
If LMI engages in litigation against fraudulent use, hopefully the court will make the defendant pay the legal costs of LMI in that particular case, but LMI cannot rely on damages awarded through spurious litigation to pay also for their day-to-day costs; then they would have to seek litigation much like SCO or the RIAA to ensure a steady stream of income.
Imagine trying to distribute your music free of charge to your fans, while relying entirely on damages from lawsuits against bootleggers to pay for your studio and production costs? The fewer lawsuits, the higher damages you will have to seek in each one, because the production costs will be the same... Division by zero is not your friend!
The legal reasons already given above are of course also quite relevant and valid, regardless of the financial ones.
This seems similar to the MP3 decoder situation, even though the latter is about patents. Everyone was made to think that open-source software MP3 decoders are legal without paying the patent owner, and then the patent owner suggested that this might not be the case, and everybody was pissed off.
As a pornography attractor? LINUX as a PORNOGRAPHY attractor? I think it's worth letting the trademark thing slide for a while just to see what comes of that one.
Because as every nerd knows, you have to be ready for that hot chick you meet at the magazine aisle while you glance at Linux Format -
"oooh baby, what Linux distro do you run??? can I put my fingers through your hair??"
Obviously, nerds need to be protected from this behavior.
Though I wonder if we call it GNU/Linux we can get out of paying the fee. Maybe we were wrong for calling RMS a crazy hippie for wanting to change the name. Maybe he really is a visionary....
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
UK trademark registry http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSite/formexec?DMW _DOCBASE=ibis&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum= E851246 has the important date as 30th Dec 1994 (based on a German registration).
_ details.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=985197&p_searc h_no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=11&p _rec_all=13) records the pertinent date as 19th Jan 2004
IP Australia (http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon
From your link:
As stated in our articles of incorporation, The Linux Mark Institute ("LMI") is an organization established "to protect the public and Linux® users of the world from unauthorized and confusing use of the Linux mark and to issue proper licenses to authorized users of the Linux mark." LMI is not designed to generate profits for anyone, which is why Linus Torvalds has given LMI primary sub-license rights for the mark. We work to protect legitimate uses of the LINUX trademark without burdening Linus Torvalds or any one entity with the financial responsibility of protecting the LINUX community's use of the mark.
So your idea of "protecting" the community to to demand funds from it? Interesting.
You are worried about the community being "confused" by the mark... Maddog if people aren't smart enough to figure out what Linux is and what it isn't how on earth will they be able to run it?
I've read your position. The only reason you want the mark is for control - you even state that ["Linus told us that he did not want this to happen"] and you want the user base to pay for it.
I've read your whole position. You still have not provided a single valid reason why it can not be in the public domain - other than you guys want to keep your finger on it. Saying you are protecting us is just silly and frankly rather insulting.
"It's a Wonderful Life gets played a thousand times every Christmas because it is in the Public Domain. -- I've never heard anyone confuse it with "A Charile Brown Christmas." in all that time.
First of all, if you do not make any revenues you are almost by definition a "non-profit". On the other hand lots of "Non-profits" make revenues, but it is just that they are recognized by their government as a "non-profit". I think both of these are recognized in the LMI schedule as "non-profit."
But let's say you just want to put out a distro "for fun". Put it up on the net and let people pull it down. Don't want to charge money for it, so you don't have the $200. to sublicense the name "XXXXXLinux", nor do you want to protect it with a real trademark, as this costs a LOT of money. Several things could happen:
Only a very small number of people will ever notice your name "XXXXXLinux" and everything will be fine.
Someday someone will see what you are doing and create some offshoot of a product and call it the same name. They WILL trademark the same name you chose, they WILL get a sublicense from LMI, and they WILL take you to court and take away the work that you have done to build that reputation and apply it to their "stuff". Then you will have to choose another name and start the recongnition all over again. This is what the Linux vendors COULD have done in 1995 when the person trademarked the term "Linux". But we were lucky and could prove BOTH that Linus had prior rights and that the person holding the trademark had no legitimate business based on it.
Or you might be lucky and never have someone try to take away your name while you have a "hobby", but some day as your product grows in popularity you may start to collect money for it (or for services attached to it) and THEN the hammer lowers.
Or there may come a day when a standard name search comes up with your use of the term "Linux", and LMI will be forced to ask you to sublicense the name, in order to protect the base name itself. Perhaps by that time you will have a cash flow that will allow you to pay the $200. that would be the license fee.
As President of LMI I can not advise you on what path to take, either legally or morally. All I can tell you is that there are as many people out there that will try to take advantage of your work and your good name as there are grains of sand on the beach (and I am normally an optimist). I only encourage people who want to start a project that they hope becomes big enough to be "important" to attach as much "importance" to that name as it deserves.
Warmest regards,
maddog
If their product is based on Linux, why not? However, if their product is not based on Linux, but merely pretends being so, thus tarnishing the Linux name, merely paying $5,000 to LMI will not grant Microsoft a license to use it that way (or in any other way they would like).
An annual trademark license is not something you can buy at 7-11 without telling what you are going to use it for. Neither can you duplicate it or resell it yourself. It wasn't the high license fee requested by Sun Microsystems that forced Microsoft to stop tweaking their Java implementation, while still calling it Java. It was the conditions of the license prohibiting such use of the name, irrespective of any fee paid.
...this year, just to my rear. It's fair, in my opinion. GPL states the source is free, but the "Linux" name isn't. This shouldn't be a surprise, Linus has owned the trademark for years.
-brain
A few years ago, good guys publishing Linux-related stuff were being threatened by someone who demanded license fees for use of the "Linux" trademark, which he turned out to have registered himself at the USPTO. I don't remember the name of the guy, but it wasn't Linus Torvalds or anybody else in the community. It was eventually possible to get him to transfer the registration to Linus (or maybe it was invalidated, I don't know which), but doing so did cost a lot of money and legal work.
That's the incident that started this thing. In order to protect the good guys from being challenged again and again over this by various bozos, Linus has delegated authority over the name to Linux Mark Institute so that they can protect the name worldwide, but running such an operation does cost real money (I doubt any national trademark registry allows you to register a trademark free of charge).
Remember, "free software" isn't about "free" as in beer, but as in freedom. Sometimes you have to pay real money for that freedom, or someone else may take your freedom and your money away.
This isn't about Microsoft, which I doubt will resort to releasing bogus "Linux" software just to tarnish the name. It's about all the anonymous bozos trying to make a quick buck off something they had no part in creating, hurting us all in the process. LMI cannot base its trademark license conditions on the concept of a single enemy such as Microsoft, but has to consider the realities of trademark law and established business practice, including the risk of lawsuits.
I think these jokes are STUPID To Undertake; Please, Idiot, Desist
Afterall, the trademark was applied for in 1993. 12 years and billions of web pages later Linus wants to enforce it?
Bonne chance!
It's not only i before e except after c, because weird is weird.
Hyper-technically you are correct but in context you are wrong.
It's a Wonderful Life was in the public domain from 1974 to 1993... Nearly a quarter century. In that time it got played thousands of times. (google is your friend)
It is doubtful anyone mistakes it for A Charlie Brown Christmas, so in context you're wrong.
That notice is the only thing I really question about LAI (if it happened as described; I didn't receive it myself since I don't live in Australia). Sending e-mail to every author of a web page containing the word "Linux" is spamming, whether required by law or not. If they had at least done some manual screening to try to weed out non-infringing uses, but made a simple mistake in one or a few cases, that could have been excused after an explanation. Expecting any inappropriate recipients to sort it out themselves is not something I tolerate.
Several years ago, the Software Publishers Association sent spam to 300,000 FTP system administrators to warn about the potential for software piracy. I was one of the recipients, and I immediately blocked their 207.95.37.0/24 network in our router, prohibiting them from talking TCP to our university department network again. They are still blocked, though I doubt they have noticed.
As for the law requiring a notice being sent, I doubt it, but I guess I have spent fewer hours studying law than the number of really stupid laws worldwide, and I know nothing about Australian law in particular. In any case, any spammer telling me "it's the law" will be treated just the same as any other spammer: Blacklisting and blocking. Hard to implement retroactively, I'm afraid, but I need to make the point that my mailbox does not exist for the purpose of people fulfilling whatever legal obligations they have or believe they have towards somebody other than me, period. If you absolutely need to yell at people, please do it where nobody can hear you.
Will my refusal to receive their notice make them lose their trademark? Probably not, but if they lose it, I will tell them "it's the law" and suggest that they keep their hands off my mailbox next time. In this way, spamming could also spell disaster for Linux.
Yes, that's what spammers usually say, expecting recipients to pay the bill instead. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I'm all for Linux Mark Institute protecting Linus Torvald's trademark; they are doing us all a favour. All I ask is that they don't engage in spamming in order to protect it. However, I have no evidence indicating that they did, only hearsay, so I see no cause for action in this case.
Indeed... I'm getting tired of commenting, the same clueless objections keep reproducing themselves all over this discussion like rabbits.
I think it may be time for a practical demonstration. Someone, please file a fraudulent trademark application for "Slashdot", then request renaming the slashdot.org domain to something else unless a fee is paid. Or, if the trademark is already in the hands of its proper owner, launch a campaign to have the owner "release it into the public domain" (after which it can be registered by anybody else), in the spirit of free speech and beer and whatever! :-)
Just because I haven't noticed this yet....
comp.ol.linux.misc discussion (1996)
*Ahem*, when everybody's done screaming "The Comfy Chair!?!?!" in varying hammy dramatic tones, let us pause and consider: This is being done to solve a very severe problem. Anybody at all can use the name Linux for any purpose at all, and not even have anything to do with software! If you've had the experience of searching for a Linux-related frob, only to have a porn-page pop up titled: "Hot College Linux Girls", you get my drift. Free stuff will stay free...and this will ensure that nobody can use corporate clout to take our free name away from us. I think.
An' be careful lobbin' them grenades around these penguins! They'se timid creatures that spook easy!
The Board of EFA has noted with concern the criticism of EFA Board member Jeremy Malcolm for representing the Church of Scientology in a conflict with Steve Zadarnowski's web site and posts to Usenet. In many respects the Board shares those concerns, given that the Church has instructed Jeremy to employ legal process to stifle Steve's criticisms and comments on the Church.
While supporting the right of anyone to legal advice and representation, EFA is of the view that the use of defamation law to stifle free expression and debate is to be condemned in the strongest terms. EFA is ready, willing and able to support any person who has their rights to free speech threatened by the legal process.
To respond to concerns that the presence of Jeremy Malcolm on EFA's Board compromises EFA's committed stand for freedom of expression, Jeremy has voluntarily stood down from the Board until further notice. On behalf of the Board, I thank him for this action. While the Board acknowledges that a lawyer's own views are not to be assumed to be those of any individual client, the perception of divided loyalties would be damaging to the reputation of EFA and may dissuade people from seeking EFA help in a legal conflict, especially concerning the Church of Scientology. Jeremy has entirely absented himself from EFA meetings and online discussions for the time being so as to remove any possibility of conflict of interest.
Jeremy has not resigned from the Board of EFA. The Board, including Jeremy, are in discussion as to the circumstances under which he will continue his unpaid and committed work for EFA in its civil liberties charter.
I would like to emphasize that throughout the present dispute, Steve has been in regular contact with myself and all information has been dealt with on a confidential basis. Anyone who is cautious about contacting an organisation rather than an individual over a litigious issue is welcome to contact myself as EFA Chair or Irene Graham as EFA Executive Director.
As to the threat by the Church of Scientology against Steve's site and Usenet posts, on behalf of EFA I deplore the heavy-handed use of the legal process to stifle criticism of the Church and note that the site has been mirrored elsewhere. Defamation law, an uncertain and expensive legal process, is ill-used in relation to the Internet. The 1999 amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act, strongly criticised by EFA for its censorship provisions, nonetheless created section 91 which protects ISPs from liability as publisher in circumstances not yet tested in Court. EFA supports the establishment, through a test case, of the proposition that threatening the ISP as a tactic to stifle online expression is unlawful in Australia and such conduct may, in turn, give a right to a counter-suit.
In any event, Steve's web site and Usenet posts represent opinion and social commentary that deserves the highest standards of protection as free speech. EFA is committed to assisting persons in his situation and to offer such support as may be of help, including legal assistance.
Both myself and the Board will be pleased to answer any concerns that may linger regarding this issue, and the furore over this issue has prompted EFA to consider and document its procedures for ensuring that there are transparent and visible processes for avoidance of even the appearance of conflict of interest.
On behalf of the Board,
Kimberley Heitman, Chair
Electronic Frontiers Australia
www.efa.org.au
Scientology is very good at seeming innocent when it approaches people, and as long as those people do what Lafayette's Church of Bucketloads of Money wants, they never get to see or suspect the red-dripping fangs behind the facade. I strong suspect that Jeremy will not deal with those Thetan-ridden maniacs ever again.
FORMER SlashDot user 8043, bitchslapped for politely questioning the status quo, refused reinstatement by the admins and currently posting anonymously from a new IP.
TheInquirer tends to call things by names which are intended to be slightly humourous - sometimes they hit the mark, sometimes they don't. In other words it's not a mistake/typo, it's just an attempt at humour. They also refer to Mozilla as Mozzarella, Microsoft as the Vole, and the maker of reassuringly overpriced hardware comes from Cappuccino, rather than Cupertino.
I agree with you. By protecting the brand so that people can't create something that is not Linux and call it Linux makes perfect tactical sense.
We might all remember what happened with Sun Microsystems and Microsoft of Sun's Java. The only think that saved Microsoft was that Sun legally controls the its trademarks.
ANTI-SOFTWARE PATENT CAMPAIGNER SUPPORTS
LINUS TORVALDS ON TRADEMARK ISSUE,
ENJOINS THAT OPEN-SOURCE COMMUNITY
"SHOULD STEER CLEAR OF ANTI-IP POSITIONING"
Munich, Germany (22 August 2005) -- Recently, some media have reported on licensing fees that are charged to companies using the Linux brand name, which belongs to Linux creator Linus Torvalds. Those reports originated from Australia, where new licensing terms were announced and a lawyer sent out letters to users of the trademark. Subsequently, open-source activists in various parts of the world raised the question whether one could simultaneously oppose software patents and enforce trademarks.
A European anti-software patent campaigner expressed his support to Torvalds and the Linux Mark Institute, and enjoined that "all parts of the open-source community should steer clear of an anti-IP positioning, or else a vocal and radical minority will be responsible for unfavorable legislation and a reluctance by center-right governments to adopt open-source software". Mueller founded the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign and helped prevent an EU software patent law. He has recently been added to Managing Intellectual Property magazine's list of the "top 50 most influential people in IP". Managing IP is the leading publication for IP lawyers worldwide.
Mueller, a book and software author who proudly says he has been living off intellectual property for twenty years, further explained his position: "It's lawless and pointless to indiscriminately oppose intellectual property rights. They're the foundation of the digital economy. We just have to ensure that they serve their real purpose of protecting innovators, and that's what software patents unfortunately don't do in 999 out of 1,000 cases. Software patents are a power play that benefits anti-competitive forces and productless extortioners, but copyright and trademarks generally reward those who create and market real products."
The campaigner is worried that "anti-IP radicalism could backfire" because it is, as he believes, "highly detrimental to the image of open source on the right wing". In the European Parliament, the conservative EPP (European People's Party) was the only group within which, according to Mueller's estimates, "a clear majority" would have favored software patents. Based on his own conversations with MEPs, Mueller attributes that fact largely to "some conservatives falsely equating open source and communism like Bill Gates did".
Those who question the legitimacy of Torvalds' trademark rights "play right in the hands of that propaganda", with severe consequences: "If open source is misperceived as an anti-commercial movement, conservative politicians are more inclined to support legislation that seriously hurts open source. The software patent debate will flare up again in Europe, and the U.S. Congress is working on a patent reform bill. Now that conservative governments, like that of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, are increasingly interested in using open-source software, it would be moronic to let open source and conservative pro-business values appear to be incompatible." Polls suggest that Germany, which advanced the open-source cause in Europe, may also have a conservative-led government after its September elections.
In addition to the debate over the Linux trademark, Mueller is also worried over the role that some organizations play in an American court by defending the developers of the "bnetd" software against computer game publisher Blizzard Entertainment: "It's very unwise for organizations like the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) to rush to the aid of piracy-enablers. It makes it look like software patent critics are against copyright, which most of us are not."
Mueller compared the different intellectual property rights to real esta