Linux Trademark Fun Continues

Orre noted an article running on internetnews about LMI's efforts to license the Linux trademark to companies that use it. Prices range from $200 to $5k for companies with over a million bucks in revenue.

Comments

Why charge for it?

[benna]

Why not just create a blanket license which says for what purposes the Linux trademark is allowed to be used, and be done with it. No need to charge companies for it, if, as Linus says, it isn't about the money. It seems to me this would satisfy the requirement that Linus police his trademark.

Re:Why charge for it?

[enodev]

because lmi tries to get self sufficient. currently they lose money (lawyers, etc.).

Re:Why charge for it?

[Q2Serpent]

It may not be about the money, but it still costs plenty to keep a trademark. Some money needs to be charged just to break even.

Re:Why charge for it?

[n0-0p]

There are several reasons why that approach won't work. This groklaw post covers the issues very thoroughly.

Re:Why charge for it?

[maxwell demon]

But why charging non-profit uses?
I don't have a problem with companies earning money with Linux based products to have to pay for using the trademark. But non-profit uses should be cost-free.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Iriel]

While this isn't always the case, the nice thing about paying for something is the paper trail it leaves behind. When you pay for the license to use the Linux trademark, there is a financial transaction that leaves a veritable homing beacon on your product for the purposes of 'policing' the trademark. Most /. readers have probably already seen, by now, a large number of creative and technology content given the OS wrong license with the appropriate legal battles as a result. This is just a man protecting the name he made.

As it has already been pointed out, trademarks aren't cheap and the name is the only thing that Linux himself actually "owns" in the truest sense of the word. As such, he has a right to charge for the right for people for using his trademark. There are plenty of companies that use the linux technology without the Linux name, afterall. It's not as if he's charging to use the kernel, just the word Linux in your product title.

Re:Why charge for it?

[xappax]

I agree that LMI needs and deserves money, and that it's fair to ask businesses who are making a profit off of linux to chip in, but there's a bigger problem than the fees that's unresolved.

If Linus is the trademark holder, then like he says, we're relying on his personal judgement to "protect Linux" rather than using it as some kind of "legalistic enforcement tool". I know he's a good guy, but if we just trusted everyone to be good guys, we wouldn't need stuff like the GNU license.

What happens if he changes his mind? What happens if he gets sucked into a weirdo-cult? What happens if he dies and his heir is a greedy scumbag?

If we're really serious about making Linux a decentralized movement, open to reinterpretation by anyone, we need to remove points of control like this one and put them in the hands of trusted organizations or legal agreements.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Lussarn]

Apple tries to dodge OpenGroups Unix trademark with "It's Unixbased"

Maybe these poor companies do the same, "It's Linuxbased".

Re:Why charge for it?

[DrMowinckel]

What happens if he gets sucked into a weirdo-cult? You mean, as in the F(L)OSS Community?

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

In spirit I agree with you but legally speaking...no dice. You can't call your own burgers "Big Macs", even if you plan to give them to charity.

Re:Why charge for it?

[wiredlogic]

Some money needs to be charged just to break even.

Then why the discrimination against larger companies? There should just be a flat rate to cover costs.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Pecisk]

non-profit != without money

Non-profit also means that you spend as much as you get.

But for correction please read Linus mail to lkml list, it provides lot of details and destroys this oversensational post and articles which caused that.
It is simple - if you are non-profit and want to call your product 'My Linux Babe', you can do it - just you won't get ANY protection when someone also takes this title. BUT if you are sublicenser of trademark "Linux", then your title is also protected.

It is clear I guess as that.

Re:Why charge for it?

[mwvdlee]

Trademarks need to be actively guarded to remain valid. And in order to actively guard them, their use needs to be actively monitored. This monitoring requires work and work costs money.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

In spirit I agree with you but legally speaking...no dice. You can't call your own burgers "Big Macs", even if you plan to give them to charity.

That's irrelevant. The primary reason for that is that McDonalds would sue you if you tried. That has nothing to do with the question you're responding to.

The question is: would they HAVE to sue you, or could they give you permission? Does the Linux trademark protection HAVE to involve money changing hands, or could free permission be given to non-profit uses? That is the question being asked here.

Re:Why charge for it?

[maxwell demon]

It is simple - if you are non-profit and want to call your product 'My Linux Babe', you can do it - just you won't get ANY protection when someone also takes this title. BUT if you are sublicenser of trademark "Linux", then your title is also protected.

It's not quite as simple. From Linus' mail:

Or, if the name ends up showing up in a trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark (another legal requirement for trademarks), LMI itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter.

Which means, that you are practically guaranteed to get a C&D letter from LMI sooner or later, even if you chose a name which isn't likely to be used by anyone else. Which in turn means that you are effectively forced to license the name.

BTW, I don't see how this legal requirement to enforce the trademark should suddenly disappear if it's in combination with another trademark. "Microsoft Linux" would still infringe on the trademark rights even though "Microsoft" is a trademarked name in itself. Therefore "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" should be an infringment either, despite "Red Hat" being a trademark in itself, and therefore the legal requirement of enforcement should hold there either.

IANAL, however.

Re:Why charge for it?

[walt-sjc]

Charging based on ability to pay is not discrimination. Just look at income taxes - not only do people who make more pay more, but they pay at a higher rate.

Companies who license software do the same thing too with educational pricing, non-profit pricing, government pricing, Small business pricing, etc.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Pecisk]

Or, if the name ends up showing up in a trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark....

Gosh. I thought I could be wrong, but as it seems to me you didn't even read what you posted. It says that if you have trademark with Linux in the name with it, you have to pay - it is trademark enforecement, it is simple as that.

Re:Why charge for it?

[neildiamond]

"Non-profit also means that you spend as much as you get." Not accurate either actually. Many nonprofits have reserve funds. However, board members are not allowed to take those profits to take an extended vacation or whatever. Nonprofit board members only get warm fuzzies for overseeing the organization. If a nonprofit dissolves, leftover money (profit?) must be given to another nonprofit.

Re:Why charge for it?

[maxwell demon]

It says that if you have trademark with Linux in the name with it, you have to pay - it is trademark enforecement, it is simple as that.

<sarcasm>Sure, that's probably why it was in a section speaking about what may happen to you if you don't register.</sarcasm>

Now as I said, IANAL, so I don't know if the term "trademark search" has the specific meaning you imply. But if so, the whole sentence will not make sense at the place it was in Linus' mail: If you didn't register a trademark, how could a search for registered trademarks turn up your name (or, if someone else registered, how would this name point back to you?)

To quote the complete paragraph from Linus' mail, where I've put the relevant parts in bold:

And let's repeat: somebody who doesn't want to _protect_ that name would
never do this. You can call anything "MyLinux", but the downside is that
you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send
you a cease-and-desist letter. Or, if the name ends up showing up in a
trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to
protect the trademark (another legal requirement for trademarks), LMI
itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter.

In your interpretation of the term "trademark search" (i.e. search for trademarks which contain the "Linux" trademark), the if clause would always be false in the given context, therefore the whole last sentence would be a null statement.

Now of course strictly speaking it's possible that Linus wrote a meaningless sentence here. But I cannot imagine that he wanted to write a meaningless sentence here, so what he meant obviously has to be something different than what you say it means. The only reasonable interpretation I can find is "trademark search" to be a term meaning "searching for product names which contain the/infringe on the trademark."

After all, if I were selling self-made "Genuine Adidas" shoes, I'd not exactly be safe from Adidas C&D letters just because I never tried to register the trade mark "Genuine Adidas".

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many non-profits are huge money makers. The CEOs of many well-known non-profits make upwards of nine figures. Most non-profits are funnels for enormous sums of money. They just have to spend it all by the end of the year. They can spend it buying luxury office buildings, paying enormous salaries, buying space shuttles, or whatever.

Re:Why charge for it?

[robyannetta]

...it isn't about the money...

Actually, it IS about the money. It's about all those greedy bastards who are addicted to making a buck off other people's trademarks.

If Linus is smart, he'd provide Linux personal and commercial users royalty-free Trademark use. If he wanted to charge companies who sell the product (Red Hat, Novell), that's cool. It's the cost of doing business.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like [...] Hezbollah, Slashdot and Islamic Jihad [...] I think it should be clear that Iran is funding Linux trademarks. - from an Insulting and inflamatory article by an Anonymous Coward

What the FUCK are you smoking, you urine-drinking enema-gargling idiot? Slashdot doesn't have or use a Linux trademark, you cowshit-snorting placenta-eater.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

First, there is a grandfather clause - if you've already been given permission to use the name "Linux", the charge is ZERO.

Second, the point of trademark protection is to "protect the consumer", NOT the company with the trademark - even Linus doesn't get this, based on his kernel list post. The consumer is supposed to be able to tell where a product came from.

Being non-profit doesn't change that.

Yes, they can waive fees, and I expect they will for anybody who really can't pay.

Even "non-profits" can afford $200/year.

Besides, when did Goodwill change its name to "Goodwill Linux"?

The only "non-profits" involved are likely to be small distros, most of whom could easily afford $200/year - particularly since if you don't call it "Bumfuck Linux" and just call it "Bumfuck", you don't have to license it at all.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You shit-eating, donkey-raping, sloppy butt sex-having uncle-fucking ass-troll, Slashdot is owned by the Open Source Technology Group, which has a clear interest in Linux patents.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

As I point out above, Linus doesn't get it either.

Trademark is NOT primarily about protecting your company or product name from infringement for the benefit of the company.

It's about protecting the CONSUMER by identifying where a product comes from.

Trademarks exist so the consumer doesn't get misled that your product comes from somebody else.

Your company ALSO gets protection from the consumer being misled - and thereby losing business - by trademarking and this is what defending trademark from infringement is about.

But the primary purpose is to protect the consumer - at least, that's what the government says, if you believe them.

In addition, a trademark does NOT have to be registered to be a valid trademark. It simply has to be in actual use and defended. It's just easier to defend a registered trademark because you have a presupposition of validity if you registered it and you have a date from which it was effectively trademarked.

Linus did not do a good job of explaining the whole situation in his post. Groklaw did a better job.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

"we need to remove points of control like this one and put them in the hands of trusted organizations or legal agreements."

When you come up with a way that deals with the realities of trademark law, let us know.

For now, the trademark has to be owned by somebody - just like the copyright on Linux which also happens to be owned by Linus.

And the trademark has to be defended or it will be lost - and you'll have SCO Linux that contains no Linux kernel code at all.

Besides, what organization do you trust? /.? The Church of Scientology? Linux Mark International (which is assigned the trademark enforcement process by Linus - and is run by a guy named "Maddog")? The OSDL? The FSF? The EFF?

In the end, Linus owns the Linux copyright. If he doesn't want to give it up to one of those organizations, you're stuck.

If anything ridiculous happens like Linus converting to Scientology and assigning all his assets to Tom Cruise, including the Linux copyright and trademark, under the GPL all existing versions of Linux are safe. You just mass rename them and call them something else.

Big deal. I'm not holding my breath. I assume he has arrangements in case he hits by a truck driven by Steve Ballmer as well.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus needs a Blanket Licence ?

Jeez those Judges are strict !

Re:Why charge for it?

[BootNinja]

what does an end user need with the linux trademark?

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

The costs are not specific to the organization.

The costs include the cost of reviewing trademarks, the cost of registering the trademark in other countries, the cost of enforcement efforts, etc.

It has nothing to do with the cost of processing a Sublicense from a given organization. Since you can't know how many companies you will sublicense to, you can't set your revenue goals based on a flat rate. All you can do is set a "fair" rate based on the value of the trademark to the entity.

Thus, non-profits pay $200 - and somebody making a million dollars or more off Linux pays 1/2-1% up to the $5,000 maximum. If IBM comes out with "Big Blue Linux" and makes a billion dollars from it, they still pay only $5,000 per year. Hardly "discrimination."

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, Linus doesn't own "the Linux copyright". He certainly owns the copyright on some of the linux code, just as Alan Cox owns some, and several hundred other people also own some.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

Personal and commercial USERS do not infringe on trademarks.

All Linux users are completely unaffected by trademark enforcement.

The only people affected are people who have a registered or common-law trademark which includes the word "Linux" in it.

If you write a book called "Linux for Dummies", that's copyrighted, not trademarked. You owe nothing.

If you create a distro called "Bumfuck" with the Linux kernel in it, you owe nothing.

If you create a distro called "Bumfuck Linux", you owe $200/year up to $5,000/year depending on how much revenue you actually make from the distro. If you make a million dollars, you owe $5,000. If you make a billion dollars, you owe $5,000. If you make nothing, you owe $200 - if it isn't waived (but you still have to sign a Sublicense Agreement.)

Re:Why charge for it?

[ivan256]

Thus, non-profits pay $200 - and somebody making a million dollars or more off Linux pays 1/2-1% up to the $5,000 maximum. If IBM comes out with "Big Blue Linux" and makes a billion dollars from it, they still pay only $5,000 per year. Hardly "discrimination."

A few things here... For starters, having a million dollars in revenue doesn't mean you made a million dollars. You could easily have lost money.

Secondly:

Discrimination \Dis*crim`i*na"tion\, n. [L. discriminatio the
          contrasting of opposite thoughts.]
          1. The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and
                marking differences.
                [1913 Webster]

The fees are based on distinguishment between companies with differing levels of revenue. Hence discrimination. (no judgement was made on wether this is a good or bad thing in the preceding comment)

It has nothing to do with the cost of processing a Sublicense from a given organization.

You're right. It probably has something to do with the idea that companies with higher cash flow are capable of subsidizing the costs for users of the trademark with zero or low cash flow.

Re:Why charge for it?

[ray-auch]

it's fair to ask businesses who are making a profit off of linux to chip in

Which isn't what they are doing. They are asking for fees based on (projected) gross revenue. You have to pay whether you profit or not.

Re:Why charge for it?

[ray-auch]

If you make a billion dollars, you owe $5,000. If you make nothing, you owe $200

Bullshit.

RTF Licence.

If you turnover $2M and make $1M you owe $5K, if you turnover $2M and lose $1M... you owe $5K. Being a "non-profit" (the $200) is a completely different thing to not making a profit.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

No, it has nothing to do with "subsidizing" costs for lower fee users. That may be an effect, but it's not the cause.

It has to do with being unable to determine revenue sufficient to offset costs because you don't know how many "users" the trademark will have. You can't charge a flat fee and recover costs if you don't know how many people will pay the flat fee - or even how many people exist that could or would pay the fee.

All you can do is charge something "reasonable" based on ability to pay and hope you get enough people wanting to license the trademark that it offsets the costs of registering the trademark in other countries, reviewing registered trademarks that might infringe, sending out cease-and-desist letters and so forth.

As for whether a licensee made a profit or not on their million dollars, that is entirely irrelevant to how you set your fees. Obviously someone with a revenue of a million dollars is more LIKELY to be able to pay $5,000 than someone who made zero dollars. This is hardly "discrimination."

And being a pedant doesn't gain you any points. "Discrimination" has the dictionary definition you cite, but "discrimination" is illegal when you're a housing owner. No one is "discriminating" against corporations which was the accusation - the FEES are discriminating based on ability to pay - which is perfectly fair. Charging $200 for a company making a million dollars and someone making zero dollars would be discriminating against the person making zero dollars in favor of the person making a million dollars.

In other words, the "discrimination" charge is irrelevant politically correct crap.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

I said that if your REVENUE is a million dollars, you owe $5K. If your REVENUE is a billion dollars, you owe $5k.

If your revenue is nothing, you owe whatever the minimum figure is.

YOU read the fucking fee schedule as follows:

Non-Profit Tier
Annual Fee = US$200

For Profit/Other Tier 2
[Total projected annual gross revenue between zero and US $100,000]
Annual Fee = US $200

What part of "revenue between ZERO and US $100,000 Annual Fee = US $200" don't you understand?

Re:Why charge for it?

[rainman_bc]

Apple tries to dodge OpenGroups Unix trademark with "It's Unixbased"

Maybe these poor companies do the same, "It's Linuxbased".

Or simply "Has a Linux kernel".

You are no longer infringing trademark, you are merely stating fact.

If you think about it, Redhat, Gentoo et al != Linux and nor are they Linux variants; they contain the Linux kernel + a bunch of other GNU stuff...

Re:Why charge for it?

[ivan256]

No, it has nothing to do with "subsidizing" costs for lower fee users. That may be an effect, but it's not the cause.

It has to do with being unable to determine revenue sufficient to offset costs because you don't know how many "users" the trademark will have.

Your argument makes no sense. You are no more able to determine if you will take in sufficient revenue to cover costs with a progressive pricing model than you are with a flat pricing model. I'll admit that I'm speculating when I assume the idea was to subsidize the costs for less financially capable licensees, but I can say for sure the reasoning can't be what you claim. It doesn't make any mathematical sense, and I'm fairly certain these guys are smarter than that.

Obviously someone with a revenue of a million dollars is more LIKELY to be able to pay $5,000 than someone who made zero dollars.

You'll have to explain to me how this is obvious. Though, again, you seem to be confusing revenue with profits when you say "made zero dollars" so perhaps I can see how it's obvious to you.

And being a pedant doesn't gain you any points. "Discrimination" has the dictionary definition you cite, but "discrimination" is illegal when you're a housing owner.

This is just plain wrong too. It's not illegal to discriminate as a housing owner, otherwise you could be arrested for choosing the yellow paint over the red when you change the color of your house, or choose the potential tenant to rent to based on their salary and employment status in oreder to ensure they will, you know, pay the rent. Racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, and in some cases age discrimination can be illegal, but in no case is there a blanket law against discrimination in general. There is a point to being pedantic. Words mean things, and you are flying off the handle because you are interpreting them to mean something that they don't.

No one is "discriminating" (notice I stopped before "against". I'm continuing to not make any judgements here)

In this case, preferential treatment (a lower fee) is being given to some licensees and not others. What the hell else would you call it?

Re:Why charge for it?

[ray-auch]

You said exactly what I quoted - copy and pasted word for word: "... if you make ...".

You need to read the fee schedule. It states "gross revenue". Not "revenue" (as you misquote it). Not "net revenue". Not "profit".

I can have gross revenue of $1M and profit of $0. I sell $1M, but I make nothing. I owe $5k whether I make money or lose it.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Knuckles]

Can't mod parent AC up, so I copy cuz it's important:
"Umm, Linus doesn't own "the Linux copyright". He certainly owns the copyright on some of the linux code, just as Alan Cox owns some, and several hundred other people also own some."

Re:Why charge for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, you butt wiper of other peoples' bottoms, didn't you know the Earth revolves around the Sun! Get a grip. Ah, what were we talking about again?

Re:Why charge for it?

[autopr0n]

Now as I said, IANAL, so I don't know if the term "trademark search" has the specific meaning you imply. Trademark search means searching through national trademark databases, such as this one for the united states. It wouldn't hurt to take 10 seconds to google a phrase before talking out your ass.

Re:Why charge for it?

[JebusIsLord]

This has nothing to do with LMI trying to collect money on the License for "Linux", it just gives distributions the ability to sub-license the word so that for instance "Red Hat Linux" is a trademark of Red Hat Enterprises or whatever, rather than "Red Hat" being their trademark and "Linux" being a trademark of Linus Torvalds. This protects them from some asshat out there licensing the full term "Red Hat Linux" and then suing Red Hat. LMI is in no way forcing people to "chip in" to Linux.

Re:Why charge for it?

[nothings]

Awesome. Who is making money from this? Not Linus. Not LMI.

No, this is for the benefit of lawyers.

(silver lining: at least that's one lawyer who isn't getting paid to file patents)

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

I see - you're either an idiot or a troll.

Plonk! (Oh, wait, this isn't Usenet...)

I mean, someone who can't comprehend that a million dollars is more than zero dollars needs serious help, or is simply being deliberately obtuse.

Fuck off, moron.

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

Look, stupid, who cares whether you make money or not? The license says "gross revenue". Who cares? The bottom line is you owe $5K.

If your gross revenue (and I don't give a fuck what the accounting term is, you idiot, I don't care if they call it "goatsex revenue") is zero to $100K, you pay $200.

This isn't fucking rocket science, nor is any quibbling required.

The fee schedule is perfectly simple.

Notice they're not even talking about ACTUAL figures, they're talking about PROJECTED ANNUAL - if you want to get pedantic. Which means if they THINK you're going to make $100K, you owe $200.

Deal with it! Go buy Bill Gates a beer!

Jesus, where does /. find these people?

Re:Why charge for it?

[ivan256]

The comprehension problem is on your end. Let's see if I can explain...

someone with a revenue of a million dollars is more LIKELY to be able to pay $5,000

Somebody with revenue of a million dollars may have made a million dollars in profit, or may have lost an unspecified amount of mone due to costs greater than a million dollars.

than someone who made zero dollars

Somebody who made zero dollars may or may not have had more or less than a million dollars in revenue.

Either of those two companies (both of whom are presumably developing a new product with Linux in the name) may have millions in investment cash around that they're using to build their product, even if they've never sold a single unit.

You seem to be completely neglecting in this argument that the fees are revenue based, or you don't understand the difference between revenue and profit or cash-on-hand.

Since we are discussing revenue, or in your case comparing revenue to profit, there is not enough information in your statement for it to be "obvious" which party is better able to afford a $5,000 fee. Your argument is like saying that if the two of us are traveling towards Cleveland and you're going 500mph and I'm going 35mph you're obiviously more likely to get there first. Insistance on being correct is neither trolling nor being obtuse.

Your lack of understanding has lead you to make a series of blatently incorrect arguments. You should learn to understand what you're arguning about before you tell the other guy to fuck off.

Re:Why charge for it?

[ivan256]

Just to drive my point home I'd like to pull one more quore from you earlier in the thread:

Thus, non-profits pay $200 - and somebody making a million dollars or more off Linux pays 1/2-1% up to the $5,000 maximum.

There is no reason a non-profit couldn't end up paying the $5,000. Non-profit doesn't mean you have zero cash flow.

Re:Why charge for it?

[rtb61]

Mutual enlightened self interest. Why not create a Linux Trademark community. A web site where all users of the trademark can be listed and for a company where the person responsible for it's use is given (the use of the trademark should always be tied to real people, personal responsibility). The people and companies that are using that trademark can jointly fund it's promotion, defence and integrity, after all should the users of it fail to look after it they will only have themselves to blame (Don't forget to list their fiscal contributions on the site. The more effort thay out into the trademark the better it will be. Any excess funds could be used for charitable activites, a Linux Charitable Community Fund ;-)). This contributes to the idea of Linux rather than just taking the first option thought of by a lawyer. Another job for OSDL ;-).

Re:Why charge for it?

[Master of Transhuman]

Far as I know, there's nothing in the law that says the trademark can be owned by a "community", for one, let alone a Web site. It has to be owned by SOMEONE, which in law means an organization or an individual.

Second, there is no "community" that can own a trademark or anything else. Any such has to be represented by somebody, either an organization or an individual.

The LMI is that, acting for Linus who is the owner.

It sounds like your only complaint is that LMI sends out letters requesting payment, whereas in your scenario, everybody supporting the trademark would pay "voluntarily".

Basically, that's what's happening now. As Linus has said, you don't want to pay, don't pay. But you get no protection under the law either from the LMI or anybody who wants to steal YOUR trademark.

The point is, your scenario is not recognized under the law. You want to change the law, lobby Congress (lol). Until then, Linus and the LMI are the only way to do it.

Re:Why charge for it?

[rtb61]

Community, club, organisation, corporation. Listed address, digital address. Lets not get picky on semantics, you fill in the spaces. I have no "complaint" I just provided an alternate solution (that had far greater future positive tendencies). As for your statement, yes you can do it, check out company law (there is a lots of things you can do with companies and their constitutions). The web site is the place to openly manage and advertise the companies that use the trademark. Don't like it fine, it only affects my participation.

So I guess...

[Nuclear Elephant]

Prices range from $200 to $5k for companies with over a million bucks in revenue.

So I guess that's free as in 'freedom' then?

Re:So I guess...

[10Ghz]

This is not about software, this is about trademarks

Re:So I guess...

[Nuclear Elephant]

This is not about software, this is about trademarks

Ah. then we need a third category: Free as in Trademarks.

Re:So I guess...

[gnasher719]

As has been explained at great lengths on groklaw, you are absolutely free for example to make a Linux distribution named "Knoppix" without having to pay anything, and obviously you are allowed to say "Knoppix is a Linux (R) distribution. Linux (R) is a registered trademark of the owner of the Linux trademark."

You are not allowed to create a distribution and call it "Knoppix Linux" without paying for the trademark. And Microsoft is not allowed to distribute "Microsoft Linux" without paying for the trademark. And once Linux takes over the computing world, Microsoft will not be allowed to rename "Vista" to "Linux" and distribute it as "Microsoft Linux" at all, in order to retain a tiny bit of market share, because Linus can refuse to let anyone use "Linux" in a product name if it isn't Linux what they are selling.

Re:So I guess...

[squiggleslash]

Yup.

Probably worth mentioning, because some people seem to think it's an issue: it's not necessary to infringe upon a trademark to make a program work the way you want it to work. There's nothing inherently wrong with trademarks, either in theory or in practice, in fact, when properly used they provide a useful way of ensuring people can't pass off their stuff as something else.

Not that they're impossible to abuse, but I don't see any evidence Linus is abusing them. Actually, I'd go further than that: At the moment, Linus isn't making any money from the operation, seeing it as something that should be self-funding and non-profit. I know a lot of people are defending him against supposed charges that this is not what's happening, as if there'd be something wrong if it was a profitable operation.

But if he wants to make a profit from it, I'm not going to criticise him for that. He did some initial work that, while it may be overrated (the GNU tools form a bigger, more complicated, and IMNSHO, more useful part of the end user operating system than his kernel), was useful to many people and captured a lot of mindshare. He associated a corruption of his name to that program. And he has managed that project for more than a decade. In the view of most free software people, and I'm one of them, it would be unethical for him to be rewarded by crippling the program itself, preventing people from being able to improve it and to help one another. But making money from the mindshare aspect, from being able to say "This is Linux, the Real Thing. The version officially blessed by Linus Torvalds, as you can see from the name"? That's fine by me. That's actually beneficial to everyone.

The software continues to be free. Sure, my version will have to be called "Squiggix". Your version will have to be called "Nuclearelephantix". The fact we can't call them Linux, we can't claim they're the real thing without actually funding the project, is hardly damaging to our freedom. And it certainly helps Linus, should he ever want to, to make sure his name is only a[tt]ached to versions he has control over (a key artistic moral right - nobody should have to be associated with something they didn't endorse), and helps end users choose on the basis of active support for Linux, and the stamp of approval of a known person.

Re:So I guess...

[Phil06]

Free as in blow job (it's free but you probably had to buy her some jewelry)

Re:So I guess...

[kleinux]

Prices range from $200 to $5k for companies with over a million bucks in revenue.

So I guess that's free as in 'freedom' then?

No, freedom costs a buck o' five.

Re:So I guess...

[Pflipp]

Well, there goes Debian GNU/ Linux...

Wah, why not make RMS' day and just call it GNU.

Re:So I guess...

[maxwell demon]

But GNU is short for "GNU's Not Unix", and Unix is a trademark ... so maybe just "Debian GN"?

Re:So I guess...

[ReallyNiceGuy]

MOD PARENT UP

Re:So I guess...

[jez9999]

How does that make sense? So, all the Linux distroes that don't want to pay for the TM just remove 'Linux' from their name (how many already have it in there?). Microsoft call their version Minix... no wait, it'll have to be Misex or something. But, as long as it doesn't have 'Linux' in the name you're fine? How is that protecting quality or mindshare? Microsoft Vista - a Linux(R)-based operating system!

Re:So I guess...

[Eunuchswear]

Yup, I only browse using Debian IceWeasel.

Re:So I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, "how insightful". -1, Flamebait for you.

Re:So I guess...

[MrShaggy]

There ya go. I am excited! For once someone says what Ive always wanted! Its ok for someone to make money, based on the work that they did.

Re:So I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Its ok for someone to make money, based on the work that they did.

Unless it's M$ then it's teh 3v1l.

Re:So I guess...

[Master of Transhuman]

See my response above.

The FSF has no objection to trademarks, but they don't use them. They also don't want to be caught using somebody else's trademark in their software.

And GNU is not the Linux kernel in any event. GNU is SOME of the paraphanalia piled onto Linux.

Re:So I guess...

[Master of Transhuman]

It's not protecting quality or mindshare.

It's protecting the NAME. Period.

Anybody talking about quality or mindshare doesn't understand trademark.

Trademark is solely and entirely about helping the consumer determine who made a product or where it comes from.

The Linux kernel is the only thing in a Linux distro that Linus cares about - and it's been named Linux and should not be applied to any kernel that doesn't include kernel code approved by Linus and the kernel developers.

The name also should not be appropriated by someone else who can then charge UNREASONABLE fees for its use - as was attempted once already.

Linus doesn't care if your distro sucks, only whether it's named Linux but doesn't have the Linux kernel code in it sufficient to be called Linux. (What that amount is, I have no idea - ask Linus.)

Now, you could complain that if somebody produces a distro with a really crappy kernel mod that still qualifies as Linux and uses the Linux name, then Linus isn't really accomplishing anything with the trademark IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE.

But he COULD indeed refuse to license the name to that distro specifically because it would harm the reputation of the Linux name. That's one of the things a trademark holder can and will do - review the quality of products which are being applied for a sublicense. This is one of the costs of being a trademark holder, if you want to do it. If the product sucks, you refuse to sublicense the name.

Microsoft could indeed say Vista was a Linux-based OS. That's simply outside the scope of trademark law. Other laws might apply, but not trademark law. Red Hat might have a Lanham Act case against Microsoft if they did that. Deliberate misleading the consumer as to the origin of your product is indeed illegal regardless of trademark. Somebody would take Microsoft to court and the court would have to decide how much of Linux is really in Vista and whether Microsoft's marketing was "true" or not.

Re:So I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

> you are absolutely free for example to make a Linux distribution named "Knoppix"

Unless you happen to name your linux "Mobilix"

Re:So I guess...

[WookieinHeat]

"And it certainly helps Linus, should he ever want to, to make sure his name is only a[tt]ached to versions he has control over (a key artistic moral right - nobody should have to be associated with something they didn't endorse)..."

Col. Sanders or whatever from KFC was forced out of the company shortly after its creation, for the rest of his life he was the face of a crappy chicken place and got nothing for it.

Re:So I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's completely untrue. Sanders worked for KFC pretty much until his death. He even went on international good-will missions to promote the company.

I'm serious. I'm sure it's happened to some people, but you picked the wrong example.

Re:So I guess...

[Knuckles]

GNU is SOME of the paraphanalia piled onto Linux.

Sigh ...

GNU predates the Linux kernel, by 7 years, both as actual code and, more importantly, as an idea. The idea to create a free Unix-like system from scratch and envision it as a complete system, GNU, is the reason for Stallman's request to name the now-existing system GNU/Linux (and not, as so often erroneously and irresponsibly repeated on slashdot, the fact that this system contains a lot of GNU code), see "Linux and the GNU project" (bold font by me)

One CD-ROM vendor found that in their "Linux distribution", GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be "GNU".
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did that. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.

Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting components because you can't have a system without them. Some of our system components, the programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we wrote many components that are not tools.(...)
When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, he filled the last major gap. People could then put Linux together with the GNU system to make a complete free system: a Linux-based version of the GNU system; the GNU/Linux system, for short. The earliest Linux release notes recognized that Linux was a kernel, used with parts of GNU: "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info.

Re:So I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trademark is solely and entirely about helping the consumer determine who made a product or where it comes from."

No, that's absolutely WRONG. Trademark at its basest form is clearly intellectual property, plain and simple. That means everything that goes along with it.

iow, you can have a product that is clearly and cleanly based on GNU/Linux, yet not be able to put Linux in its name. That clearly contradicts your claim.

"Linus doesn't care if your distro sucks, only whether it's named Linux but doesn't have the Linux kernel code in it sufficient to be called Linux. (What that amount is, I have no idea - ask Linus.)"

But that's not the only criteria being use here, now is it? For commercial entities, it's whether you paid for the use of the name and use Linux. If you use Linux commercially but did not pay, they go after you.

Plainly, the pro-Linus camps seem to overlook this very basic issue--that Linux or Linus (to some this is synonymous) is using trademark individually to enforce code that was generated by a community.

His actions are a shock because they are the EXACT actions that commercial companies do that steal or adopt community generated products for their own ends. If MS or Google or some 3rd party did this, we'd call their actions at some level stealing.

iow, he is overreaching. No longer are IP and contract laws solely being used to protect the code base consistent with the ideals of free software and open source, but instead being turned on its head as a commercial tool. The fact profit is not generated does not contradict this; the IP is being used to leverage against companies, the exact thing most /.ers complain about IP.

Linus et al. may very well have justified reasons for this. I, myself, do not like it enough that I pulled any idea of putting the new boxes on Linux. They've gone BSD.

Re:So I guess...

[Master of Transhuman]

I KNOW the fucking history of GNU.

GNU is NOT LINUX! LINUX is a kernel upon which people have decided to heap other software and the sum total of which is CALLED Linux JUST LIKE the sum total of Windows is called Windows - not BSD/Windows because some fucking BSD code is in it. And that was decided by the people who use and develop for Linux, not the FSF.

Got it now, pedant?

On top of which, I really don't give a flying fuck up a rat's ass what Stallman or the FSF or anybody contributing to GNU think about anything including Linux.

Are we clear?

When I hear Linus call Linux "GNU/Linux" and he works out a deal with Stallman and the FSF to trademark it that way, I'll give a slight rat's ass.

I hate to tell you and Stallman this, but society decides what is going to be called what, and Linux is called Linux and will NEVER be called "GNU/Linux" except by FSF pedants.

"When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, he filled the last major gap"

Yeah, right, the one Stallman couldn't fucking fill for twenty fucking years. THIS is why he wants it called "GNU/Linux", not some bullshit about what percentage is the kernel vrs what percentage is the ancillary system software. His fucking eqo will not let him admit that Linus did the job he couldn't do - create a fucking KERNEL.

Not a C compiler, not a grep, not a bash - a fucking KERNEL - without which the rest of the stuff is so much useless crap (excepting the compilers, of course, without which everything is useless crap - unless you want to code in machine language.)

Sorry, but I've had FOUR FUCKING /. PEDANTS fuck with me today, and I've had it with you morons. I have no patience with assholes trying to score points on bullshit and from now on, /. pedants are going to get it both barrels.

Stay the fuck away from my posts.

Re:So I guess...

[Knuckles]

not some bullshit about what percentage is the kernel vrs what percentage is the ancillary system software.

You didn't even read or understand what I wrote, so I guess there is no point debating.

Re:So I guess...

[squiggleslash]

JUST LIKE the sum total of Windows is called Windows

Windows isn't a kernel. For your analogy to be correct, Windows would have to be called KRNL386.EXE by the majority of morons, just as GNU is called Linux by the majority of morons.

Re:So I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, it's like the sperm and the egg.

This is a good idea

[TurdTapper]

I don't see anything wrong with this. He is protecting the name and still allowing it to be accessible to your every day developers/programmers.

If a company has more than 1 million in revenue, 5k is pocket change. While 200 dollars is well within range of a couple of guys programming in their basement. And this also allows some protection for those guys in their basement if someone tries to take their name. They might not have the money for a legal battle, but for 200 bucks they can insure their name.

Re:This is a good idea

[duffbeer703]

Plus, if you can't cough up $200, two guys in a basement have the option of just changing their product's name so that it doesn't claim to be "Linux".

A product called "Two Guys in a Basement OS" or "Two Guys in a Basement OS, Powered by Linux" would not require a trademark license.

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't tis a bit much from the man who wrote less than 2% of the code????

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

If a company has more than 1 million in revenue, 5k is pocket change.

Bullshit.

1 million in revenue means 10k is a good 1% profit. Such a company has to give up 0.5% of their profits for the year just to license something they thought was free.

A scam is a scam no matter who is running it.

Re:This is a good idea

[A_Known_Coward]

No, I disagree with you.

The spirit of Open Source is openness FOR ALL. When it is applied to certain organization just because they can afford it, you break the spirit of openness.

If you want to stifle the growth of Linux and Open Source in general, this is a sure bet to get it done.

Re:This is a good idea

[Evil Adrian]

They've been trying to protect the trademark since 2000, it's common knowledge.

If you didn't realize you had to license the name, TOO BAD. You totally deserve to get burned if you don't do your homework before you go into business.

Re:This is a good idea

[releppes]

With that arguement, you might just as well say an average income family of 40k/yr should have no problem renting Windows for $100/yr? And all the arguements of why BUY Windows when Linux is FREE would be moot.

Don't get me wrong, this whole trademark thing may be good. I just don't agree with your rationale.

I don't know how trademarks work in general, but one thing I was curious about was the comment in the artical about how anyone could create their own Linux name/product, but then be a possible target of someone else coming with a cease and desist letter. So with the trademark thing, say someone created their own Linux name/product but didn't opt for buying the Linux trademark. Say that product/company becomes very successful. Could some prick then go buy the Linux trademark for that product then play games with them?

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

And if suddenly all the projects that have trademarked names want to start charging?

This is a mess waiting to happen.

Guy: "Hi, I'm using Ubuntu OS"

Otherguy: "What's that?"

Guy: "It's this OS, it's kinda like Red Hat OS and BSD, but different"

Otherguy: "Well what are you doing with it?"

Guy: "I'm using this image editing program called Cripple, it's like Retard is on Red Hat OS, and Amputee from Debian" ....

You can see how this can be very damaging to the entire open source movement.

Re:This is a good idea

[hotdiggitydawg]

That's fine, if you live in some parallel utopia.

Back here in the Real World(TM) an unprotected trademark can be taken over by someone else. At the moment, Linus is protecting the trademark, still allowing anyone to use it (many people seem to miss this point), and giving preverence to those who officially licence it for a nominal fee. The alternative? The trademark goes unprotected and someone like SCO asserts that they own it instead... and any use of the word "Linux" anywhere suddenly requires a very hefty fee...

Re:This is a good idea

[CKnight]

So with the trademark thing, say someone created their own Linux name/product but didn't opt for buying the Linux trademark. Say that product/company becomes very successful. Could some prick then go buy the Linux trademark for that product then play games with them? ...yes.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

Actually at these rates, 40k/year would be paying $200/year. Half a percent of your income isn't "pocket change" for anyone.

Re:This is a good idea

[ray-auch]

"1 million in revenue" ($)

That is _gross_ revenue - not profit. That isn't a big company. In fact under some definitions it wouldn't even be big enough to qualify as "small" (as in SME).

It would probably be only 5 or 6 people (based on UK averages). Each of those people is going to have to find $1000 for this - plus there is stuff to sign, so add legal costs (for review etc.). Plus reprinting costs etc. for adding the required attributions.

If we are talking about an open source start-up (possibly loss-making), with people working for less so they can contribute back to the community, this must be a kick in the teeth.

Re:This is a good idea

[gowen]

Meanwhile, back in the reality occupied by people who are aware of how trademark law operates:

Guy: "Hi, I'm using Ubuntu OS"
Otherguy: "What's that?"
Guy: It's a Linux distribuition. See here on the packet where it says "Powered By Linux"...
Otherguy: Oh, cool

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

What makes you think they would allow you to put "Powered by Linux" on there?

Re:This is a good idea

[Androclese]

Then they have three options:

1) Change the product name so it does not say Linux, possibly losing their $100k in profit.

2) Keep Linux in the name, pay the license to use the name Linux (which belongs to Linus, not anybody else), and make $95k in profit.

3) Call it a scam, don't pay for a license, get sued, be hated by the Linux community, and go out of business making $0 profit.

Re:This is a good idea

[TurdTapper]

It's not part of profit, it's an operating expense. Same has having to purchase hardware, office supplies, advertisements, etc.

Re:This is a good idea

[hotdiggitydawg]

Personally I'm waiting for those programs with recursive naming schemes "eg. "Pine Is Not Elm" to fall into this. That will be a very colourful explosion indeed...

Re:This is a good idea

[gowen]

Yeah. What he said.

Re:This is a good idea

[gowen]

Nonsense. If you've got a $million in revenue, and your profit margin is the cost of about $1/8 of a developer, you're either a new startup, or you're screwed.

$5k will buy you less than 6 weeks work from even the lousiest freelance coder, and if you don't think the right to leverage a well known trademark isn't worth to you, you'll need to employ some marketing personnel too.

Re:This is a good idea

[dhasenan]

But if you have a company that's producing and marketing a Linux, $200 is probably the least of your expenses. You probably spend as much on pens in a year.

As has been pointed out, the restriction is only for people who use the word "Linux" in a product name. End users aren't affected.

I'd like a free trademark for Linux, but really, not even many Linux distributions need the word "Linux" in their name. Red Hat, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Yellow Dog, Source Mages...they all function well enough without the word "Linux" in their names. It's pretty much a moot point.

Re:This is a good idea

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Actually, the way I understand it is that if a trademark goes unprotected anyone is free to use it, and no one can (legally) claim ownership for it anymore.

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I don't know...maybe he RTFA?

Re:This is a good idea

[richie2000]

4a) Keep Linux in the name, don't pay for a license and look stupid as someone else does buy a license and use your product's name.

Or, if no one would want to copy your product's name:

4b) Keep Linux in the name, don't pay for a license and live happily ever after.

You do not have to buy a license to use the name Linux. You do have to buy a license to get trademark protection for your product name, iff it includes the word "Linux".

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

Again, BS.

Ask CentOS if they can put "Powered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux" on their web site, and you'll see how trademark law works.

Re:This is a good idea

[gowen]

Nice try, but that's not a comparable situation. CentOS can't brand their distribution with the name of someone else's distribution. The can, however, describe it as Linux based because Linux isn't a distribution, it's a kernel.

Similarly, I can't call my new chip "Intel iGaz", but I if I build a PC containing a genuine Intel chip, I can describe it as such. In short, I can use the brands of the components from which my product is made, but not the brands of directly competing products.

Capiche?

Re:This is a good idea

[qaq]

might be a good solution if true

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

It's not the end of the world, but it isn't cheap either.

And there's other problems.

Sure the distros might be able to get away with not having Linux in their names.

But one test of whether an action is ethical is whether everyone else could do the same thing and everyone would still win. This test is often failed by actions that game the system, like pyramid schemes, etc.

Suppose all Free Software took the same stance, you have to pay a small fee to use their name. We'd suddenly have hundreds of software applications going under up to 5 or 6 different names each, for the exact same software. It'll be our own self-imposed tower of babel.

Free software should have free names. Take up a collection, do whatever, but don't discourage legitimate users and distro makers from using the correct name for your software, or we all lose in the end.

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Linux trademark isn't worth paying 1% of your 1 million dollar revenue for.. then don't pay it..

Point is, if it doesn't benefit your product or company, why pay for it? Its not like they're forcing you to use Linux branding.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

Centos is "made of" Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It *is* RHEL, with some very minor changes.

It's like taking your Intel chip, soldering over some pads to multiply unlock it, and then selling it. I doubt Intel would be very happy with you using their trademark to sell thier modified chips. And you'd probably get a C+D letter if you sold them as "Powered by Intel, Whizzbang 3000+ CPUs"

It's the same with distros. None of them use a vanilla linux kernel, they all modify it in small ways and sell it.

You can't tell me that Intel has the right to tell you to stop using their name with your modified Intel chips, Centos has no right to use the RH name to distribute their modified RHEL version, but somehow distro makers will be free to say "Powered by Linux" without any fear of legal repercussions??

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, I can use the brands of the components from which my product is made, but not the brands of directly competing products.

Hello? By FAR the largest 'component' of centos is RHEL. Not just a kernel, the entire RHEL distribution.

You are like one of those cargo cult members, trying to make up a mythology that explains some bizzare events for which you have no actual understanding.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

I shouldn't even have to say this, but this is Slashdot where the economic illiterate abound..

Expenses directly reduce profits!

Amazing insight eh?

Re:This is a good idea

[squiggleslash]

I know, it's awful, isn't it?

My friend loves Rum and Coke. You can bet she hates it when she goes into an unlicensed bar and has to ask for a "Rum and Cola-based Drink Product" or else face horrendous lawsuits.

Well, actually, that never happens, because using the word "Coke" in that context (as long as the bar tender is, actually, using the product of that name produced by the Coca-Cola Company) is perfectly legal and not a trademark infringement.

If a distro is bundling Linux with their system, then it's fine to refer to (that part) as Linux. However, calling the entire thing "Something-or-other Linux" is another matter. And registering "Something-or-other Linux" as a trademark is out of the question without Linus's permission (which is where we came in.)

Re:This is a good idea

[boarder]

I don't know, possibly because Linus on groklaw and the lawyers from TpreviousFA said specifically that it was allowed. I think they even used that exact example. This is only to stop people from trying to trademark Linux as their business name, e.g. Ubuntu Linux. This is not about trying to stop people from using Linux as part of their business. They are protecting the Linux name from submarine trademarks. If you want to call yourself "Drizzlenuts, a Linux distro" you don't have to pay at all; if you want to call yourself "Drizzlenuts Linux," you do. This way, anyone will be able to have Linux in their name.

Re:This is a good idea

[IHateSlashDot]

You CANNOT selectively enforce your trademark. You will loose it. If Linus enforces this for companies making in excess of 1 million dollars, it must also be enforced for individuals, non-profits, charity organizations, etc. It does not matter what groklaw says. What matters is real legal system precident. Why do you think McDonalds forces individuls whose names are McFoo to remove the 'Mc' from any food related business that individul operates? That's right. You can't even use your own name because McDonalds trademarks it. If they failed to enforce that for an individual, they could looks their trademark on McNuggets, etc. So please, let's not be hypocritical. Linus is doing the same thing. Welcome to the real world. Linux is just becoming another commercial venture and Linus wants to cash in.

Re:This is a good idea

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

After the Bit Keeper fiasco and his DRM comments I am starting to have my doubts about Linus Torvalds and this worsens those doubts.

He has done an amazing amount of good for the community, but some of his recent actions are quite troubling.

Re:This is a good idea

[gowen]

It's like taking your Intel chip, soldering over some pads to multiply unlock it, and then selling it. I doubt Intel would be very happy with you using their trademark to sell thier modified chips

Well. Gosh. D'ya think. hey, wait, that's exactly what I said.

Re:This is a good idea

[Reservoir Penguin]

This is so US centric and will hurt Linux adoption in developing countries, I'm doing linux related work for a company in a country where $200 is more than 2 monthly salaries. In short, I really think there should be a waiver for at the very least non-commercial entities. And from what I know even in the US $200 can opften mean for a couple of guys whether tjhey will payu rent for the month or sleep outdoors.

Re:This is a good idea

[Asprin]

The other thing to keep in mind is that (unlike patents), US law requires to to defend your trademark or you lose it. Therefore, I also think this is a good idea. What does Microsoft charge to let you use "Microsoft Windows" or what does SCO/Novell charge to let you use "UNIX" in the name of your product? I bet LMI is charging quite a bit less.

Re:This is a good idea

[ckaminski]

but in this case, since the original company was already producing something, isn't the second company with the "legal" trademark purchasing a mark with already existing dilution? It seems (on the surface) to be a non-issue from the aspect of having to defend oneself against a trademark suit on a trademark you created (without permission).

What it definitey does not get you is any sort of trademark protection, so you *COULD* end up competing against yourself.

Re:This is a good idea

[DrJimbo]

AC wrote:

isn't tis a bit much from the man who wrote less than 2% of the code????

Thanks for you concern but you don't have to worry. Jeremy at the Kernel Trap says:

Since fighting and winning that battle, maddog noted that Linux International has spent over $300,000 defending the Linux Trademark, over $250,000 of which came from his own pocket. A lengthy write-up that further clarifies trademarks and their importance can be found on groklaw.

You can see that there are other people helping out so Linux doesn't have to shoulder the financial burden of protecting the Linux (R) trademark all by himself.

Re:This is a good idea

[ray-auch]

You do not have to buy a license to use the name Linux. You do have to buy a license to get trademark protection for your product name, iff it includes the word "Linux".


Totally wrong.

To get (registered) trademark protection for you product name you have to trademark it - just as with any product name.

To use "Linux" in your product name, you now have to pay. Period.

To quote the LMI site:


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.


Pretty clear.

Re:This is a good idea

[richie2000]

Pretty clear.

Yeah. But misleading. To quote Linus himself:

"And let's repeat: somebody who doesn't want to _protect_ that name would never do this. You can call anything "MyLinux", but the downside is that you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter." [...] "It's all about whether _you_ need the protection or not, not about whether LMI wants the money or not."

Which is what I wrote. Or at least, it's what I meant.

See his letter here: http://lwn.net/Articles/148590/

Re:This is a good idea

[mysticalreaper]

It should be noted that $5k is for companies with more than $1 million revenue from the product with "Linux" in the name, not from the entire operation of the company. This is even more reasonable than the parent's assumption.

Also, remember that Linus didn't write copyright law, he must work within the legal framework he is given.

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see...

linux> egrep ^.in.$ /usr/dict/words | wc -l
      55

55 combinations (many of which are already taken) doesn't exactly count as a colorful explosion, does it?

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

I think what the GP meant that since the license costs are required and calculable operating costs such as hardware and paper, it's not not entirely true to say "it takes away from my profits", in the same way as it would be misleading to say the paper comapnies steal your profit.

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you didn't realize you had to license the name, TOO BAD. You totally deserve to get burned if you don't do your homework before you go into business."

WRONG.

That is the EXACT reason why the IP move is so bad and alarming to many. Linus et al. are acting like commercial entities, leveraging IP. This is the strongarming we see and despise that is done between commercial companies, a larger company to a smaller company, or a company against an individual. These are tactics we hate, yet Linus et al. is now employing just the same.

Some think that because this is being done to protect their precious Linux excuses it. The fact that the IP being protected is in reference to an open source and free software effort beyond the necessary scope only makes it worse.

An additional note--the copyright was not assigned to an open source foundation. It was assigned to an individual. Linus has made dubious choices before (e.g. the bitkeeper fiasco). Bluntly put, he assumed community effort and goodwill in using the name for his own SOLELY. At least domestically (for me, in the US), I hope someone takes him to court re dilution of the name given his lack of enforcement over the past 10 years (since he's applied in 1995) and he loses the trademark.

And yes, that would be better than open source code being used to badger companies. We can simply call it something else.

Re:This is a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You deliberately exluded the next sentence (of the same paragraph) form your quote :

"Or, if the name ends up showing up in a
trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark (another legal requirement for trademarks), LMI itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter."

The plan is explicitly to take action against anyone they find using the Linux trademark without paying them a fee. Why are you trying to hide this?

Re:This is a good idea

[ray-auch]

and to carry on quoting linus:

"Or, [...] LMI itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter. At which point you either rename it to something else, or you sublicense it. "

Pretty clear. Like he says, it is about whether _you_ need the protection _from LMI_ - and that is all you are buying. LMI can't (and doesn't) offer to protect you from anyone else - for a start you could be in a completely different jurisdiction where they have no right to protect you.

Re:This is a good idea

[Nept]

Such a company has to give up 0.5% of their profits for the year just to license something they thought was free.

That's not counting the tax write-off which makes the total significantly less than 0.5%.

Re:This is a good idea

[roadrunnerro]

The hardware, office supplies and advertisements sellers don't claim their stuff is free (speech / beer / STD or otherwise) - maybe lead-free...

Re:This is a good idea

[DrJimbo]

The people who think the license fees are too high should look at this Kernel Trap Thread. It contains the following quote:

Since fighting and winning that battle, maddog noted that Linux International has spent over $300,000 defending the Linux Trademark, over $250,000 of which came from his own pocket. A lengthy write-up that further clarifies trademarks and their importance can be found on groklaw.

Given that a quarter mil has already been spent out of pocket, it seems reasonable to me that the license fees be high enough to defray at least a reasonable fraction of the cost of defending the Linux (R) trademark.

Those that explicitly benefit from using the trademark should help foot the bills for defending it. I don't think it is reasonable to expect people (such as maddog) to shoulder all of the financial burden of protecting the Linux (R) trademark. As others have said, if the price is too high, just use a different name.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

Just like companies that register stupid patents to try to extract sliding scale fees from companies... that's an operating expense too right?

I'm just saying the argument doesn't defend the actions in any way, because if this was some chickenshit company trying to extract $200 from every nonprofit that tried to use an HTML form, it wouldn't fly.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

OK, lets say they would have make 10k gross profit on 1 million revenue (it was a bad year). Lets also assume they pay 30% taxes.

After taxes they would have make 7k without this licensing.

With the licensing expensed and written off they make 5k gross and 3.5k after taxes. They are still out 3.5k.

So their profits were still reduced by 50%, even taking into account tax effects.

Funny how that works, eh? Taxes or no taxes, it still cost them the same percentage of net profits.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

that's an operating expense too right?

Well, yes it is. A business operates in the world of currently valid laws, regardless of what you, I, or the business thinks of these laws. I.e., if you use patented technology willingly, then yes, the costs are an operating expense.

if this was some chickenshit company trying to extract $200 from every nonprofit that tried to use an HTML form, it wouldn't fly.

Your anology falls down completely because

• This is not about patents
• This was not submarine: as documented in various posts (in threads you also posted to, therefore I won't repeat it) there was a real attempt to hijack the trademark in 1996, and soon after this, Linus announced that he would protect the trademark.
• We are not talking about using an HTML form, but about using the Linux trademark which has its value because of thousands of man-years invested over a period of 14 years.
• Using the Linux code continues to not cost a dime. Using the Linux trademark can cost something.
• If you read Linus' mail to lkml (linked to ca. 100 times in the comments to this story), and you'll see that you don't even need to request a sublicense even if you create BadCompany Linux. You just get no protection for that name either (because, if you need protection, you need to file for a trademark which can't be granted without a sublicense, because "Linux" is already trademarked)

I don't understand why you are so bent on allowing BadCompany to create a proprietary "BadCompany Linux" without a single line of Linux code in it and without any chance to prevent this.

And btw, my post was not at all concerned with the Linux trademark issue. Just about the fact that regardless of what you think of the rules, for a business, the license fees simply are a normal operating expense.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

It's not about patents, but it's about the same bait-and-switch tactics used by submarine patent people.

You let someone use something for free until it gets popular, then you start asking for money.

I don't understand why you are so bent on allowing BadCompany to create a proprietary "BadCompany Linux"

Because this LMI crap does nothing to prevent malicious use of the mark. Suppose Red Hat decides to license the Linux mark. What they are distributing isn't Linus' Linux kernel, it's their own fork of it. Almost no distro uses the vanilla kernel.

So there's nothing stopping BadCompany (a paid licensee) from loading up their version of the kernel with spyware, and whatever else might reflect badly on Linux, and distributing that. To try to prevent them would be the same as forcing Red Hat to use the vanilla kernel.

What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.

The mark is extremely weak as it is because of this. What "Linux" is, isn't well defined.

don't even need to request a sublicense even if you create BadCompany Linux.

Then there's also nothing stopping me from creating "LinuxDailyNews" and writing about how much Linux sucks in each issue then. That was even one of the supposed reasons for this, to stop anti-linux "news journals" from using the mark. If they aren't going to enforce the mark in this way, it makes you wonder what the purpose of all this even is.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

You let someone use something for free until it gets popular, then you start asking for money.

Except that it has been announced in 97 or so, as documented in other postings in this story.

Suppose Red Hat decides to license the Linux mark. What they are distributing isn't Linus' Linux kernel, it's their own fork of it. Almost no distro uses the vanilla kernel.

Which doesn't matter as long as Linus grants a sublicense.

So there's nothing stopping BadCompany (a paid licensee) from loading up their version of the kernel with spyware, and whatever else might reflect badly on Linux, and distributing that. To try to prevent them would be the same as forcing Red Hat to use the vanilla kernel.

Yes there is: Linus can simply not grant or revoke the license.

What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.

In the context of trademarks, it is very well defined: it's simply everything Linus gives license for

What "Linux" is, isn't well defined. There's dozens of distro-kernel-versions.

It is well documented that it is about preventing others from hijacking the trademark. Read up on the della Croce case, also documented in the other comments. For your convenience: http://www.google.com/search?q=Della+Croce+Linux+t rademark&

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

Yes there is: Linus can simply not grant or revoke the license.

The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with.

I know all about Della Croce. And for the last 9 years it was fine and good without these fees. Now suddenly they are putting the screws on, under threat of legal action.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with.

I'd say this entirely depends on the license agreement.

Now suddenly they are putting the screws on, under threat of legal action.

Not suddenly. Of course under threat of legal action, lika all contracts. There are no screws.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

Just to add another resource you might be interested in. I can understand if you don't trust Linus in license stuff. I personally am reluctant to do so too, given his history in these things. However, you might trust Eben Moglen and RMS, who have this to say about the matter:

"The licensing strategy chosen by the Linux Mark Institute, which, as far as I know, has not changed -- despite the recent uptick in interest -- is well-designed to meet that requirement without unduly burdening any business that wants to identify itself and its goods as 'Linux.'"

Wrt your accusations of submarining and turning around, putting the screws on, etc., you might be interested in this slashdot story from 2000 in which Linus, among other things, says this (originally posted to lkml):

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

I don't see how you can justify your accusations

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

I'd say this entirely depends on the license agreement.

It's published on the site! I suggest you read it before commenting! It even includes an unsustainable "advertising clause", like the old BSD license that was thrown out.

Of course under threat of legal action, lika all contracts

No I mean suits for infringement which pretty much implies no contract.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

It's published on the site! I suggest you read it before commenting!

Ok, maybe from now on I should assume I am being trolled, but what the heck. If only for the benefit of anyone who still happens to read this. (hey y!)

In fact, I have read the license before commenting, in contrast to you - either that, or you're a troll, or maybe you have the WORST reading comprehension skills I ever encountered, even on /.

You said, "The sublicense agreement doesn't give them any permission to revoke the license just because the licensee starts doing something they don't agree with."

There may even be a grain of truth here: not because of "something they don't agree with". At least I couldn't find a clause that said something about "damaging to the good name of Linux and Linus Torvalds" or some such.
I actually would find it ok, if not great (need to hink about this some more) if they had no termination provision for stuff like spyware-ridden but still linux-based products. This probably belongs to the realm of opinion and is to be decided by the marketplace. The license probably should be only concerned with fact.

And there is a fact-based termination provision. From the sublicense agreement:

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

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

I.e., sure they can refuse to grant or terminate the license when the licensee uses it for non linux-based products. (And your "Red Hat also uses a non-vanilla kernel FUD" is also right out the window already here, since "Linux kernel with modifications" is explicitly allowed.)

Your other point was "an unsustainable "advertising clause", like the old BSD license that was thrown out". I guess you refer to section 12., "DISPLAY AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS."
I dispute this on several grounds:

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

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

  
  The language in question is,

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

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

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

One more thing to this, "Then there's also nothing stopping me from creating "LinuxDailyNews" and writing about how much Linux sucks in each issue then. That was even one of the supposed reasons for this, to stop anti-linux "news journals" from using the mark. If they aren't going to enforce the mark in this way, it makes you wonder what the purpose of all this even is".

For the context see my long post further down a bit earlier. As I said there, I couldn't find such a clause either, and it's a good thing. I don't want a world where Microsoft can prevent me from saying publically, "Windows sucks", because I infringe their trademark. And I sure as hell don't want Linus to start this (or rather further it, because it already happens for hardware tests, etc., and it sucks)

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

The GPL refers only to the code. Trademarks are not and have never been even a concern for the GPL (or BSD licence for that matter). It has always been well understood that you can take Red Hat's distro and do whatever you want with the code, but that you can't call your linux company Red Hat. Duh.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

.5% of your gross revenue isn't a "nominal fee".. That's a big chunk.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

either that, or you're a troll, or maybe you have the WORST reading comprehension skills I ever encountered

Cool it on the ad hominems, I'm not trolling.

"Linux kernel with modifications" is explicitly allowed.

Which is why I said it does little to protect the Linux mark from damage. Which is the supposed reason for all this. BadCompany could still license the Linux mark, fuck up the kernel badly, and release thier new "linux product".

Nothing LMI could do would stop this after the fact. There's no termination clause for such actions.

The same is true of BadLinuxJournal. With something like a magazine, there's no software being distributed at all. There's no way to revoke the license if they are just a MS shill trying to smear Linux, the magazine is still about Linux, and is an "Authorized Service", it "documents Linux". No recourse once the sublicense is issued.

I saw this "stopping bad magazines" argument put forward as a reason for LMI too, yet it is completely impotent at stopping such things.

The BSD clause was deemed unsustainable because it became clear that F/OSS was going to be constructed from a great number of components of different copyright holders. This does not hold true in the same way for trademarks.

Yet. Once other major software projects realize they can scam money this way, we'll see lots more jumping on the bandwagon. Better make some room for a few hundred trademark acknowledgements, and keep a lot of extra money in the budget, once all the software projects demand money for the use of their name.

"But", I can hear you saying, "if you just use the project name to refer to the project itself, it's within trademark to use it that way without restriction". That's true. But what the distros distribute is rarely the original product. They are in fact distributing something different, something that isn't quite "The Gimp" anymore.

It wouldn't be a hard case for say The Gimp, to argue that what Red Hat is distributing isn't really "The Gimp" but in fact is a derived version that is apt to cause consumer confusion about what "The Gimp" really is. Thus Red Hat can't use the Gimp name under that provision, and must license the mark to use it with their product.

Yes, LMI allows derived works to be called "Linux" (if you pay their license).. but that very idea of derived works gives the trademark holder that much more power to control the use of their trademark, to dictate that it only be used when referring to the official releases.

If this sounds outlandish, it's exactly what happened with Red Hat and Centos. Red Hat has told Centos they may not refer to Red Hat Linux anywhere in their web site, documentation, etc.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

As I also mentioned in my other long post, the only reason I brought this up was because that was one of the arguments for LMI that I saw, that it would somehow prevent smear-journals with Linux in their names.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

I can only reiterate that they are still free to use the software as they want, and redistribute as per the GPL. They can still name themselves "XYZ, based on Linux (R)". They just can't name themselves "XYZ Linux" without the fee when they want protection themselves.

I can see how that may suck if you happen to be named "XYZ Linux", but I still fail to see the big problem. Unless they reasonably show the opposite, I believe that it works for the few people that are affected (can you even name 5 companies?), and if not, that it will be possible to reach an agreement with LMI over particular cases.

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

Yeah, as I see it, these people were wrong. I strongly hope so, but IANAL of course

Re:This is a good idea

[Knuckles]

it does little to protect the Linux mark from damage. Which is the supposed reason for all this. BadCompany could still license the Linux mark, fuck up the kernel badly, and release thier new "linux product".

I think we have a different view on what it means, to "protect the linux mark". As I see it, the whole trademarking as such already protects the name by making sure that ownership remains with those with the moral right.
Furthermore, it protects against someone naming something "XYZ Linux" if in fact it is not linux-based. This clause -is- there.

Nothing LMI could do would stop this after the fact. There's no termination clause for such actions.

As for not being able to retract the use for a difference of opinion on quality et al., I would think I applaud that, as I already said elsewhere. However I am not totally convinced yet that this ability isn't buried somewhere in the legalese, IANAL.

Once other major software projects realize they can scam money this way, we'll see lots more jumping on the bandwagon. Better make some room for a few hundred trademark acknowledgements, and keep a lot of extra money in the budget, once all the software projects demand money for the use of their name.

What are you talking about? I think you misunderstand. There is no requirement to license anything because you include it with you product. You just have to license if you company or your product is called "XYZ Linux" (and you want protection yourself). How many distros or magazines do you know that are called "The Gimp Inkscape Ubuntu Gnome KDE Apache Linux" or some such?
I thought that much was clear. I think I'll call it a day after this post.

"But", I can hear you saying, "if you just use the project name to refer to the project itself, it's within trademark to use it that way without restriction". That's true. But what the distros distribute is rarely the original product. They are in fact distributing something different, something that isn't quite "The Gimp" anymore.

You still haven't explained why the question whether you distribute pristine upstream sources or patched ones should even matter. I have specifically shown you the language of the actual agreement that specifically allows derived works. You just come up with the same things over and over without even trying to refute my arguments.

It wouldn't be a hard case for say The Gimp, to argue that what Red Hat is distributing isn't really "The Gimp" but in fact is a derived version that is apt to cause consumer confusion about what "The Gimp" really is. Thus Red Hat can't use the Gimp name under that provision, and must license the mark to use it with their product.

Quoting again from the license agreement because so seem to think you can ignore it. This time relevant parts bolded by me:

"AUTHORIZED GOODS/SERVICES" means Linux-based goods/services. Linux-based goods are computer systems and software using the Linux kernel either directly from www.kernel.org or with modifications, or packages bundling the Linux kernel with tools, utilities, hardware, or layered software. Linux-based services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance Linux-based goods. (...)

has to license the mark. You are not making sense.

Re:This is a good idea

[GigsVT]

Don't call it a day yet.

You still haven't explained why the question whether you distribute pristine upstream sources or patched ones should even matter.

Quit harping on the LMI agreement and look at trademark law.

The LMI agreement lets you distribute modified versions, but trademark law does not does not give you that right in absence of such an agreement.

Lets assume The Gimp gets a trademark on that name.

If I take the Gimp and distribute it, everything is peachy. I can call it the Gimp. Without a license. Because it is the Gimp. Trademark lets you refer to the original product by its trademark, this is called nominative use.

But if I modify the Gimp, it's no longer "The Gimp", it's something else entirely. Something that if I were to distribute it as "The Gimp" could cause customer confusion and dilution of "The Gimp" as a trademark. I could be sued. I would lose. I have to buy a license from The Gimp Licensing Institute.

You see my point now? Modification and distribution of a product revokes your nominative "fair use" rights under trademark law.

This is an extremely important concept, I want to make sure people understand it.

Quoting again from the license agreement because so seem to think you can ignore it.

I can ignore it. Because I'm not talking about it. I'm talking about trademark law in general now, not LMI. I'm talking about what you are or aren't allowed to do without buying a license.

And the truth of the matter is, LMI could sue you for distributing "Linux Powered" things that were not pristine sources, if you didn't buy the license.

You have no nominative fair use defense, that went out the window when you modified it.
You have no statutory fair use defense.
You have no comparative advertising fair use defense.
You have no parody fair use defense.

You have no defense. You can be sued. You will lose.

Re:This is a good idea

[Evil Adrian]

Careful throwing that "we" around, because I sure as hell don't have a problem with anyone protecting a trademark that they created and are totally entitled to.

"An additional note--the copyright was not assigned to an open source foundation. It was assigned to an individual."

Yeah, wow, what a surprise. He is also in charge of the kernel, not an open source foundation. Why don't you quit your bitching, it is the way it is, and Linus has every right to protect his baby in whatever way he sees fit, you stupid commie.

Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices range from $200 to $5k for companies with over a million bucks in revenue.

I guess information wants to be free, but not as in beer.

Re:Huh

[tha_mink]

I guess information wants to be free, but not as in beer.

You can have Linux for free still, you just can't use the name in your product/service/name etc, without paying for the privilege. It's still free.

Re:Huh

[ucahg]

[i]I guess information wants to be free, but not as in beer.[/i]

A trademark is hardly 'Information' in the sense of the word that free software advocates would purport it.

Consider if Microsoft created a terrible linux distro purposely, and called it Ubuntu, and marketed it as Ubuntu (not assocaited with MS) on the web. The people over at the real Ubuntu would want to fight back. That's the power of the trademark, it protects your name and image, not your 'information'.

Laws

[kevin_conaway]

Who enforces these laws? Are they enforced by the country where the trademark is being used?

If I am in Swaziland and I start selling my own version of Linux, who is going to stop me? I suppose the community won't recognize it as an official "Linux" distribution?

Re:Laws

[duffbeer703]

The trademark just means that you cannot call yourself "Linux".

If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.

If you call your distro "Swazilandix" or "Swaziland Operating Environment", etc, you don't need any license at all.

If you start selling soda and call it KevinConaway Coke, you need a license from Coca-Cola. If you call it KevinConaway's Cola, you're ok.

Trademarks are different than patents or copyrights. They exist to protect the integrity of a brand -- not the ideas.

Re:Laws

[redwiregmail]

It would apply there, its a international trademark, you might escape it in international waters and a few 3rd world countries though.

It certainly applies in Australia where I am, theres a been a bit of media spurned uproar about it, mainly because places like zdnet.com.au are glossing over the tier price structure and only mentioning the max fee in articles.

Frankly its understandable why its going on, because trademark owners have an obligation to maintain a trademark by protecting it even against small infractions or risk loosing it. Sadly if Linux was available for everyone to slap on thier company name and anything they make without any sort of control at all the evil guys will rip its good to shreds.

So Linus has gone with a minimal amount he is required to go with to give a good show that he is maintaining the trademark. And good on him for doing it.

Re:Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I start selling coke and call it KevinConaway Coke, do I still need a license from Coca-Cola?

Re:Laws

[hotdiggitydawg]

If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.

Wrong. You only need to buy a licence if you also want to register the trademark "Swaziland Linux". Of course, you could not licence it and not trademark your own name, but then there's nothing stopping someone else coming along and calling their product "Swaziland Linux"...

Re:Laws

[wiredlogic]

And if I start selling coke and call it KevinConaway Coke, do I still need a license from Coca-Cola?

No. But if you start selling mirrors and straws SCO will find some way to go after you. You'll be stomping on Darl's turf after all.

Re:Laws

[MartinG]

If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.

As I understand it, that is not quite right. If you want to call your distro "Swaziland Linux" _AND_ you want to register "Swaziland Linux" as a trademark itself, then you have to licence the "Linux" part.

If you don't care about trademark protection then you don't have to pay.

At least, thats what Torvalds seems to be saying about the Linux trademark here

Re:Laws

[dhasenan]

LMI hasn't set foot in Swaziland.

Swaziland has trademark laws, apparently, but I can't find information about them online.

So if you have a Swazilandish company, feel free to trademark its name, even if it contains "Linux".

Re:Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't trademark "Swaziland Linux" and use it in comerce, you will eventually recieve a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense letter from LMI lawyers. Part of trademark law is that you have to actively enforce your trademark or you lose it.

Re:Laws

[duffbeer703]

If your "Swaziland Linux" product diminished the value of the "Linux" trademark, you could be sued for that.

Just try selling a non-trademarked product called "Coca Cola" or "Websphere" and see how that goes.

Re:Laws

[slavemowgli]

You may want to read up on international trademarks; for example, see what Wikipedia has to say about them.

In particular, it seems that only around 70 countries participate in the Madrid system for international trademarks. I haven't been able to find a list right away, but I wouldn't be surprised if Swaziland was not among them.

Can someone (a trademark lawyer reading Slashdot, maybe?) enlighten us?

Trademark Requirements

[Nuclear Elephant]

Trademark Requirements:

1. Does it run Linux?
2. ...
3. Profit?

Re:Trademark Requirements

[Androclese]

Your list is incorrect.

1. Does it SAY Linux in the product name?
Y - Pay for a License
N - Don't need a License

2. The Linux Name has integrity and is not watered down

Everybody needs to stop jumping to conclusions and read what is actually trying to be done here.

Re:Trademark Requirements

[ifwm]

"2. The Linux Name has integrity and is not watered down"

or alternately

2. The Linux name is RESTRICTED, not necessarily by someone who you agree with, or even beleive should have such oversight.

Re:Trademark Requirements

[ScouseMouse]

Someone already tried this.

Google for an opportunist piece of scum called William R. Della Croce, Jr. who registered the trademark back in 1994. It took quite a while to get that registration invalidated

This is why this entire trademark thing has come up.

Linus has to enforce the trademark or he will loose it, then some the next Della-Croce will come along and try to abuse the system and grab the trademark.

Re:Trademark Requirements

[MorePower]

But why can't Linux be declared a generic term describing the family of software derived under GPL from Linus' kenel? Then no one can claim ownership of the word and try to sue others with it.

Re:Trademark Requirements

[cranos]

So you believe that Linus should let the name Linux out into the wild where anybody can attach it to anything they want?

Great, we could end up with any of the following:

• SCO Linux
• Microsoft Linux
• Linux brand Neurotoxin(Open Sores!)
• Linux pregnancy kits(thousands contributed)

Just some of the many "quality" products coming soon if Linux wasn't trade marked.

Didn't we discuss this already?

[A beautiful mind]

I mean, what's the new thing? The previous two articles made it clear that it costs between $200 and $5k. Linus posted about it on LKML and basically confirmed. Why is it a bad thing? Well, if anything blame the trademark system, that someone needs to agressively protect a trademark.

Re:Didn't we discuss this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current system is bad? I would say the alternative (being able to register but not having to protect a trademark) is worse, as then you could register trademarks willy-nilly.

Soon enough the only phrases left to trademark would be "Yak Enema" or "InieovFGoie".

Linus Torvalds explains it

[enodev]

To prevent more FUD being spread, please read

http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[david.given]

Linus Torvald explains Slashdot:

...quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.

...and, once again, gets it spot on!

(I'm just wondering whether this gets modded 'Funny', 'Insightful', or 'Flamebait'...)

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[maxwell demon]

(I'm just wondering whether this gets modded 'Funny', 'Insightful', or 'Flamebait'...)

Probably all three of them :-)

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[badger.foo]

It certainly isn't new, and IIRC the main reason why Linus ended up owning the Linux trademark was that somebody else had registered the Linux trademark sometime in 1996 and soon started sending letters to among others Linux Journal, Red Hat and basically anyone in the GNU/Linux busines demanding -- what else -- royalties. He didn't get anywhere among other things because Linus et al could prove that they had used the "Linux" name as early as 1991. Googling on "Della Croce Linux trademark" will turn up enough backround (but only 621 links nowadays) for anyone interested.

Once you own a trademark, the next phase (at least in the US) is to make sure it stays protected by policing the use.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[ifwm]

And that in a nutshell displays how much respect he has for his target audience.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[ifwm]

"Once you own a trademark, the next phase (at least in the US) is to make sure it stays protected by policing the use."

That's only one option. The another option is to allow it to become public domain.

Much closer to the spirit of OSS in my opinion, but I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying so.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

His "target audience" in this particular case, was the LKML, not slashdot. And he WAS spot on.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[DataCannibal]

"To prevent more FUD being spread ..." ?

You must be new round here !

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[ifwm]

No, the AUTHOR'S target audience was the LKML.

Linus was not the author, so you fail.

Nice try at pedantry though.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you weren't retarded, what would you like to be? Are you /really/ unable to comprehend even the simplest of things?

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[rah1420]

(I'm just wondering whether this gets modded 'Funny', 'Insightful', or 'Flamebait'...)

            Probably all three of them :-)

Well, after three hours, it's "None of them." ;-{)

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[solman]

If it is public domain, then anybody can use the term Linux to refer to anything.

Microsoft can release a broken version of Windows and call it "Micorosft Linux" even if it has nothing to do with the Linux kernel.

SCO, which has already changed the name of their company for legal purposes, could change the name of their product to Linux, and keep it closed source, and charge money for it, all without violating the GPL.

GPL'd software (like Linux) is NOT released in to the public domain because it would remove the protection that copyright law provides against predators like Microsoft and Linux.

Similarly, releasing the trademark into the public domain would remove the protection that presently exists against hostile companies abusing the name.

In my opinion, more serious damage can be done by abusing the trademark, than by abusing the copyright. Linux would survive some company creating a non-GPL'd fork. But if Microsoft and SCO spend millions or even billions of dollars associating the term Linux with things that are obviously not Linux, the word would lose all meaning.

I shudder at the thought of having to call it "Gnu/Linux" just to make sure people undertand what I am talking about.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it doesn't become public domain if you fail to protect. It becomes somebody else's trademark. Someone who is willing to protect it. And You lose the right to use that Trademark.

That's why you _have_ to protect the Trademark.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[ifwm]

"Microsoft can release a broken version of Windows and call it "Micorosft Linux" even if it has nothing to do with the Linux kernel."

Whereas all they have to do now is license it, and fight it out in court. That's SOOOO much better, wasting community resources on protracted legal battles over pissing rights.

Re:Linus Torvalds explains it

[solman]

The whole point of this exercise is that Linus decides who can and can not license Linux and for what purpose.

If you think that Linus is going to grant Microsoft a license to market non-Linux products as Linux, then you are smoking something very interesting.

Red Hat doesn't have a license

[darthcamaro]

That's the real interesting part of this - Red Hat doesn't have a license, neither does Mandriva. Novell does. So if it's good enough for Red Hat not to have a license than it's good enough for me.

Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license

[TurdTapper]

Red Hat doesn't have one because they aren't using 'Linux' in their name. It's Red Hat, Inc.

Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license

[rhedin]

except that their product is "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"

Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license

[TheRaven64]

They are creating a derived work of the Linux kernel (taking the kernel.org sources and applying custom patches). They are then distributing this thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's not Linux, although it's very close, and it is being sold as Linux. They definitely need to license the trademark. Interestingly, they don't for Fedora Core, since that doesn't have Linux in the name. I would not be surprised it they simply dropped Linux from the name of their enterprise system - Red Hat is fairly well associated with Linux already, so they could get away with just calling it the Red Hat Enterprise System (or whatever). This would have the added advantage for them of strengthening the Red Hat brand, at the expense of the Linux brand, and allowing them to move to a BSD or HURD kernel at some point in the future if this proved advantageous.

Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license

[n0-0p]

If you had a valid sublicense before August 2004 you are grandfathered in for free. Based on that I expect that Red Hat doesn't have to purchase a license at all. Perhaps Novell did need to purchase a license due to Suse changing hands, or maybe they just chose to opt in and avoid any potential hassle. After all, the cost is quite negligible for them.

Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license

[emmavl]

Just read Linus' post on LKML. Red Hat has a trademark on 'Red Hat' so they don't need to protect 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux' because nobody else can call their distro that ...

Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license

[FJR1300 Rider]

And don't forget that Red Hat helped fund the legal fees of the 1996 dispute with that William Della Croce scumbag over the Linux trademark.

For that reason alone one would think they'd be exempt from ever having to pay any trademark fee -- they helped protect it in the first place.

Confused?

[BenjyD]

Can someone out there explain what this means in simple words a dumb software developer like me can understand? Say I wanted to create a Linux distro called "FooLinux" now, as an entirely volunteer, non-commercial effort. Do I have to pay the LMI $200 if I want to operate in one of the jurisdictions where the trademark is valid?

Re:Confused?

[Agret]

No, only if you are generating revenue from the name.

Re:Confused?

[TurdTapper]

Nope, you can still use it.

FTA: Torvalds explained that a company could decide not to sublicense and call their product "anything MyLinux but the downside is that you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter."

It's all about whether someone wants or need protection and "not about whether LMI wants the money or not," according to Torvalds.

Re:Confused?

[spectrokid]

or you can call it "myBeautifullDistro", and not pay a cent either.

Re:Confused?

[nomadic]

You don't have to, and LMI won't come after you, but it's theoretically possible that another company who DID license the name will come after you.

Re:Confused?

[releppes]

So say someone starts a product first but doesn't buy a trademark. Then someone else, seeing the success of the first person, makes their product and does license the trademark. So now the second person can sue the first person over the trademark name? So would the morale be Linux is free and do as you wish but if you want to be protected pay us money. If you don't want protection, that's fine. We'll only provide the tools for others to come after you.

Mind you, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just painting a real bastardized scenario. However, if just a scenario could exist....who's side would LMI really be on?

Re:Confused?

[ifwm]

"It's all about whether someone wants or need protection"

Shouldn't that be left to the individual or company?

Re:Confused?

[Reliant-1864]

Only if you want to trademark your name

Re:Confused?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but here's the way I understand it...

If you want to call your distro FooLinux and not pay the fees to LMI...fine. LMI *might* come with a cease and desit or sublicense letter if you were commercial...they have to since its part of the trademark process to protect the trademark. If they don't protect it, they could lose it.

However, it seems to me that there is a huge advantage to actually paying the fees. What if you called your distro FooDistro to avoid the whole LMI thing. What happens if a commercial product comes out called FooDistro? What do you do now?? Well, you could hire lawyers. Or you could just get hosed by the company. Now, say you called it FooLinux and you paid LMI their sublicense fee? Well, if that company came out with FooLinux, you could complain to LMI, and it is my belief that it is LMI's responsibility to track down the offender now. Why? Becuase your contract with them isn't really valid if LMI can't show that they have the right to give you the name you've requested. Actually it's not so much a belief as it is actually written into the LMI agreement:

9.C. SUBLICENSEE will communicate to LMI any factors known to SUBLICENSEE respecting said SUBLICENSED TRADEMARK, and testify in any legal proceeding, sign all lawful papers, make all rightful oaths, and do everything reasonable to aid LMI at LMI's expense to obtain and enforce proper trademark protection for the SUBLICENSED TRADEMARK in the TERRITORY.

That last sentence is the important one. If you want to look at it this way...the $200 fee to LMI to license FooLinux is buying you a retainer for lawyers to enforce the trademark on your FooLinux name.

As for Red Hat and their Red Hat Enterprise Linux...I'm guessing that the reason they're not going to take the sublincese is because they've marked Red Hat already, so they can trash anybody using Red Hat in their product name. I think Novell is buying into LMI because they want to appear friendly to the community since they're a bit newer around Linux than everybody else.

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

Re:Confused?

[AngryElmo]

No - according to LMI and Linux, unless you are profiting directly from the Linux name, you would only take a trademark licence if you wanted to protect FooLinux from any other person using that. So in other words - if you want your distro name protected from being hijaacked - get a licence. If you start selling a version of BSD and call it FooLinux, you'll get a Cease & Desist letter.

To end this for once and for all

[jurt1235]

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

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

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

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

Re:To end this for once and for all

[cpt kangarooski]

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

No, a trademark is essentially a stand-in for quality. A customer can know, based on the mark, that drinks branded as Coke will have a particular taste; that cars branded as Yugos will suck.

If these expectations aren't met, due to quality standards that vary (either way) among identically-branded goods, then the trademark is no longer serving its purpose. Then bad things happen to the mark holder's rights.

This is why it is critical that trademark licenses include quality control standards and auditing. If Linus isn't spot-checking licensees, and making sure that their software is still basically Linux, and not significantly different, and revoking licenses where these standards aren't met, his rights are in jeopardy. In fact, failure to include provisions for doing this will harm him right off the bat.

Re:To end this for once and for all

[maxwell demon]

No, a trademark is essentially a stand-in for quality. A customer can know, based on the mark, that drinks branded as Coke will have a particular taste; that cars branded as Yugos will suck.

If these expectations aren't met, due to quality standards that vary (either way) among identically-branded goods, then the trademark is no longer serving its purpose. Then bad things happen to the mark holder's rights.

So if a Yugo car company would start to make the best cars in the world, they'd suddenly would lose their trademark rights, because they don't meet the expectations? I strongly doubt that!

Per se, the trademark rights have nothing to do with quality. If Coca-Cola would start to produce utterly bad Coke tomorrow, or Coke of varying quality, they'd still retain all the rights they have to the trademark. And another company which made good-quality Cola, maybe even with the same taste as todays Coke, still could not call their product Coke, despite essentially being the same which true Coke is today.

Of course, the effect is that the trademark usually is bound to the quality the given company produces, which usually doesn't change rapidly (and if it does, the trademark will also be connected to this change). But there's absolutely no guarantee. As a simple example, say, company Foo creates a superb product named FooBar. Now, that company gets bought by company XY Enterprises, who also get that trademark. However, XY Enterprises don't continue to produce the original FooBar, but use the trademark on a similar, but inferior product.

Re:To end this for once and for all

[YomikoReadman]

Per se, the trademark rights have nothing to do with quality.

This is wrong. Trademarks are about quality; using the Yugo example was not the best way to disprove it. I'll use your example to hopefully better explain.

If Yugo started making cars that didn't suck, their TM would not be in jeopardy. It would simply mean that they had raised the quality bar for anyone else licensing their trademark, i.e. aftermarket parts sales[1]. In effect, by making cars that don't suck, they force the part manufacturers to keep up with that. If they aren't, then Yugo, in order to enforce their copyright, would issue a cease&desist letter after cancelling the license due to the fact that the inferior quality of XYZ Aftermarket Yugo parts is diluting the trademark. Make sense?

With regards to the Linux mark, it was shown a few years ago[2] that it truly is necesarry to actively pursue and enforce the trademark on an international level to prevent the dilution of the mark. Otherwise, as has been said, and rightfully so, by many others here and on Groklaw, it is very likely that companies who are fond of pursuing immoral business practices will leverage the fact that the Linux mark is public domain, and use that to their advantage in spreading FUD. This could be accomplished by working to associate it with pr0n or by producing derivatives of far lower quality than should be expected.

Now, while you mention that it appears to be quality based, I can't agree with that. The appearance of such and the actual are a bit different. Additionally, saying that the quality of the original good can fluctuate may be true by the letter, but if FooBar suddenly started to suck after the original company was bought out, would anyone continue to buy it? I highly doubt that. As for Yugo, if they stopped sucking, I'd imagine they might sell again, too.

[1]I highly doubt that there is an aftermarket for Yugo parts, but it fits the example.

[2]I'm not going to link the Groklaw article again; I saw it in no less than 5 other posts before replying to you.

Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus is still asking for $200-$5000 per usage from Australian companies. I noticed Slashdot never updated the story after implying it was a hoax. It is not a hoax.

no big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

from TFA:

Attorney Jeremy Malcolm has already contacted 90 Australian companies on behalf of Linus Torvalds in order to get them to obtain a license to use the Linux trademark. The letters have brought the issue to the forefront of the open source collective consciousness, yet again.

"You may or may not be aware that it is your legal responsibility to obtain a license from the Linux Mark Institute before you are allowed to use the word 'Linux' as part of your product or service name or brand," the letter states.

Linux trademark licensing is administered on behalf of Torvalds by the Linux Mark Institute (LMI). Fees range from $200 and go up to $5,000 for commercial firms with revenue greater than $1 million. It is important to note that the license is for vendors of Linux products to become a sub-licensee of the Linux trademark. It is not a license for users to use Linux (like SCOsource is advocating).

Though the action has raised the ire of some, the issue is by no means a new one. In fact, the LMI and Torvalds' efforts to protect the trademark date back to at least the beginning of the millennium.

Re:no big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this lawyer or someone connected to him is the one I saw tooling around in Mosman (Sydney) recently in a Porsche Cayenne with the number plate "Linux"?

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[10Ghz]

The software is free, but you have to pay to use it. What a strange world we live in.

Do you don't. the software is still 100% free, both in speech and in beer.

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[Agret]

It's only if you are using the Linux name on something that is earning money. It is the name you pay for. You don't have to pay for it but if someone else gets a license for the same copyright as your name they can send a cease and desist. You are buying protection.

The trademark owner

[ImaLamer]

From TFA:

On January 18th 2000, Torvalds, in an e-mail to the Linux kernel developers list, explained the need to protect the Linux trademark.

At the time, Torvalds noted: "Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the trademark."

The e-mail:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0001 .2/0646.html

Yeah we think yous guys may need protection...

[Ingolfke]

"Torvalds explained that a company could decide not to sublicense and call their product "anything MyLinux but the downside is that you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter."

It's all about whether someone wants or need protection

Torvalds later went on to say that "it's a dangerous world out there. You know if you don't buy some protection from me things could happen. You might fall and break your legs, or maybe your house catches fire. Dangerous times."

Linus disses /.

[Anonymous Coward]

" the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not."

- Linus Torvalds, 20 Aug 2005

http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Re:Linus disses /.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's just dissing the id10t's who post their opinon before bothering to read up on the subject.

Re:Linus disses /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but is he wrong?

Re:Linus disses /.

[Mr. Underbridge]

No, he's just dissing the id10t's who post their opinon before bothering to read up on the subject.

That's a fine distinction. That's like saying I don't hate the KKK, I just hate the racists in it.

Re:Linus disses /.

[Linux_ho]

Oh, come on. There's at least a couple people on Slashdot who try to get informed before they post. The trolls need to have some suckers giving them the benefit of the doubt to make it all work.

Re:Linus disses /.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Oh, come on. There's at least a couple people on Slashdot who try to get informed before they post. The trolls need to have some suckers giving them the benefit of the doubt to make it all work.

I've found, from experience, that it's much easier to troll the people who don't read the articles. The ones who do know you're trolling. ;)

Besides, reading the article 1)doesn't mean they understand it (to paraphrase "A Fish Called Wanda"), and 2) doesn't mean they have anything additional to add that involves actual insight.

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you have to pay to use the NAME, not the software.

But...

[Vo0k]

But I've already paid $699! How can they charge me again for the same thing?!

I call BS!

[ImaLamer]

Red Hat doesn't have one because they aren't using 'Linux' in their name. It's Red Hat, Inc.

Makes me wonder though why Novell pays, being that they are "Novell Inc.".

What about the product: "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"?

Interestingly, I notice that the Red Hat web site doesn't use "Linux" on the front page except in direct reference to RHEL.

Re:I call BS!

[orzetto]

If I understood this correctly, Red Hat is (could be) trademarked. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is "the Enterprise-oriented Linux of Red Hat(TM)", i.e. it's not a new trademark as a whole, only the "Red Hat" part is.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the whole issue is that, if you want to trademark something with "Linux" inside, you pay royalty. If you do not want to trademark, Linus does not give a shit.

Re:I call BS!

[xtracto]

Yeah... I think people are making a lot of noice of this, at the end Red Hat could change its product name to just RHEL or Red Hat EL or whatever.

I remeber something similar happening to the KFC store which was once called "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and after the Kentucky sate (is it a state? I am not from US so sorry for my lack of geography knowledge) started enforcing the "trademark" of their name so they could get some $$ and then the fast food chain just changed its name to KFC because they found the move unfair.

The same thing happened to the Kentucky Derby and other Kentucky named products

So, it is just a name thing, and the people that is going to PAY for it are the 3 geeks under the basement who do not have a established name. Big companies like Novell, RedHat etc, will just change the name of their product (Like Lindows, Xandros, etc.), the small geeks will have to pay if they want to use the Linux buzz... or change the name to something else (like maybe Knoppix L) :)

Re:I call BS!

[AgeOfUnreason]

Red Hat have trademarked Red Hat and that will do them very nicely. See Red Had you see linux . There is no need to exploit the linux trademark for redhat. Novell on the other hand proabably do need the Linux Trademark Novell does not mean linux distro since they have many other products. Trademarks are about product association. Somebody could create a whole new Os and call it linux which would not be right, the trademark will protect that. However morally every vendor should pay the license since the protection of the Trademark benifits all the vendors. If nobody Trademarked or protected the Linux trade mark and the name became synonmous with a bad 'other' product I'm sure the distros would all be pissed off.

Re:I call BS!

[ckaminski]

The way I understand it is that KFC wanted to reduce the profligate use of the word "Fried" in their name so as to improve brand image.

My Favorite Quote From Linus

[bajan_on_ice]

from http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95 which explains this whole debacle...

Gaah. I don't tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.

Now THATS insightful!

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[hey!]

Well, as Woody Allen said, "Don't knock masturbation -- it's sex with somebody I love."

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[ifwm]

In other words, he doesn't listen to the people in his target audience, because he thinks their opinions are uninformed.

Smacks of arrogance, and frankly, he can kiss my ass.

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[VP]

Did you miss the part about opinions given whether they are "informed or not"? You made his point pefrectly ;-)

To complete the quote from Linus:

[ And don't get me wrong - I follow slashdot too, exactly because it's fun to see people argue. I'm not complaining ;]

Doesn't look like arrogance to me...

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been reading this pathetic wanky dribble for the best part of eight years.

You would have to admit you gotta love it.

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[ifwm]

"Did you miss the part about opinions given whether they are "informed or not"? You made his point pefrectly ;-)"

What does that mean, exactly? Please try to be less arcane (I'm sure YOU thought you were witty, but well, you weren't) when answering.

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[VP]

You said that Linus doesn't listen to his target audience, based only on the quote provided by the parent of your post. This made his point about slashdot being a place where uninformed opinions are prevalent.

As the continuation of the quote shows, he does follow slashdot, so your opinion about him being arrogant, and not listenning to his target audience was an uninformed one.

Re:My Favorite Quote From Linus

[ifwm]

"so your opinion about him being arrogant, and not listenning to his target audience was an uninformed one."

No, it wasn't. He SAID it. It has NOTHING to do with whether I'm informed or not, only that he made it very clear he thinks people have nothing of relevance to say here, despite the fact that these are the EXACT people who support him.

Stop being such a fanboi nuthugger

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[VP]

Trademark law is different from copyright law. The fact that in the US the same governmental agency handles both doesn't make them the same.

The software is free, and you don't have to pay to use it. If you want to register a trademark which contains "Linux" in it, then you need to license the use of "Linux".

What kind of revenue

[slapout]

revenue

Net or gross? :-)

No $, No Legal Protection

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot create a trademark and let people use it for free. The way to show that a trademark is valid and to insure that it remains valid is to charge for it. If you allow people to use your trademark with no charge, the legal system will no longer recognize the trademark and in this case all protection of the mark Linux would disappear.

This is why Linus has to charge (and also why he charges such a low amount).

Re:No $, No Legal Protection

[DarkVader]

You know, I think what that really means is that if somebody with the funds wants to fix this problem, NOW is the time to do it.

After all, the word linux has existed with no charges for its use for quite a few years now. It would be quite possible to argue in court that the term is now generic, and it's too late for Linus to do anything about it.

Red Hat - you listening?

Re:No $, No Legal Protection

[Master of Transhuman]

Actually it's not the charge so much as the requirement to sublicense the trademark.

LMI can waive fees - they presumably just can't waive all of them. And they have to require a signed Sublicense Agreement even from those entities where the fee was waived.

The charging is simply to attempt to offset the costs of the enforcement effort which, as has been pointed out, has cost Maddog $250,000 over the last X years.

Re:No $, No Legal Protection

[Master of Transhuman]

The problem with arguing that the term is generic is the GPL.

The kernel may be modified heavily, but all Linux versions essentially stem from the original release under the GPL.

Thus I think a good case could be made that the term is not at all generic - it applies specifically to all versions of the Linux kernel received under the GPL from the original release from Linus. Nobody has produced a Linux kernel that has nothing of the actual Linux kernel in it and called it "Linux" AFAIK and the community has let it stand. One of the reasons for trademarking the word "Linux" is to prevent this from happening.

Also, it is not used as a verb anywhere - you don't "Linux" something, like you "xerox" copies. For a trademark to be generic, it usually needs to be used as a verb - which is why trademark lawyers always tell the company never to use their trademark as a verb - always as a noun.

It still might be possible to argue that enforcement efforts have been lax. But Linus has defended the trademark before back to 1995, so he has prior history of defending it.

Re:No $, No Legal Protection

[s20451]

You're saying that RedHat would rather go to court than pay $5k to license the name? $5k will buy you all of about three days of a good lawyer's time ...

The point is that the terms are not arduous, and the trademark is worth protecting. Why would RedHat or anyone else get into a snit about it?

Unless you're SCO...

[slapout]

...then your fee is $1,000,000,000 per copy :-)

Re:Unless you're SCO...

[Zemplar]

"..then your fee is $1,000,000,000 per copy :-)"

That should read, "One Hundred Billion Dollars!"

Of course, I'm sure you might get a discount if you barter for some sharks with laser beams attached to their foreheads...

What about amateur distros?

[Vo0k]

What about things like Damn Small Linux, Linux On A Floppy, Polish Linux Distribution and all those non-commercial Linux distros? If I made a Tiny Linux Router distro for my own firewall, and make it available on my FTP, do I have to rename it, or shell out $200 to continue using the name?

Re:What about amateur distros?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about things like Damn Small Linux, Linux On A Floppy, Polish Linux Distribution and all those non-commercial Linux distros? If I made a Tiny Linux Router distro for my own firewall, and make it available on my FTP, do I have to rename it, or shell out $200 to continue using the name?

Hi! I bold'ed the part you need to re-read from your own question...

Re:What about amateur distros?

[Vo0k]

Torvalds explained that a company could decide not to sublicense and call their product "anything MyLinux but the downside is that you may have somebody else who _did_ protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter."

Company or not, if you use something that is a trademark, owner of the trademark can send you C&D. That means, if some asshole pays $200 to LMI for sublicensing "Tiny Linux Router", then they take my code (it's GPL, they can), register the domain name, start selling my distro (still everything legal and okay, GPL.), and then send me a C&D letter stating I'm to stop using that name for my distro because it's their trademark and they own the license, so they get rid of the free competition. I still can rename it, and keep releasing under the new name (after removing 500 or so references to the name in the sources and docs), but then I'd better register the trademark of the new name or they license it again and continue litigation until I completely give up development of the distro, and they can continue selling it for a fee undisturbed.

IMHO, LMI should give licenses for quality non-commercial distros for free.

Re:What about amateur distros?

[maxwell demon]

What about things like Damn Small Linux, Linux On A Floppy, Polish Linux Distribution and all those non-commercial Linux distros? If I made a Tiny Linux Router distro for my own firewall, and make it available on my FTP, do I have to rename it, or shell out $200 to continue using the name?

Hi! I bold'ed the part you need to re-read from your own question...

From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989

Non-Profit Tier
Annual Fee = US$200

I've bolded the part you need to read to find the correct answer.

Re:What about amateur distros?

[SmellTheCoffee]

What about things like Damn Small Linux, Linux On A Floppy, Polish Linux Distribution and all those non-commercial Linux distros? If I made a Tiny Linux Router distro for my own firewall, and make it available on my FTP, do I have to rename it, or shell out $200 to continue using the name?
If you **read carefully** the link of linux kernel mailing list presented above. All Linus is saying is that it is your choice not to pay for the "Linux" name in your product **BUT** if someone else pays for the trademark sub-license and wishes to use your name...you don't stand a chance.

Re:What about amateur distros?

[Anonymous Coward]

the question is do non-profit and non-comercial mean the same thing?

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[alexwt]

You're not paying to use the software, you're only paying if you want to create an entity containing the name "Linux" and wan't to be protected against someone else using that name.

A/C trolls /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus also said:

"[ And don't get me wrong - I follow slashdot too, exactly because it's fun
    to see people argue. I'm not complaining ;]"

Since it's now salshdotted, see http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:HR1UTE7bLf0J:l kml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95+&hl=en [Google cache}

Old news

[Corbet]

This issue came up last June; LWN had a talk with maddog and covered the story back then. It's kind of surprising to see a big deal of it being made now... In short: the licensing terms have changed a bit (see the articles for the reasons) but the core rules regarding the trademark have not.

GPL and intellectual property

[Anonymous Writer]

Doesn't the GPL include a disclaimer that states if you include your work with something covered by the GPL license, you relinquish the control of any intellectual property you have included in that work, and from there it is subject to the terms of the GPL? I thought that the GPL doesn't cover software code only, but encompass other types of work like art. Wouldn't a trademark distributed with the GPL be subject to the terms of the GPL?

Re:GPL and intellectual property

[nonlnear]

Doesn't the GPL include a disclaimer that states if you include your work with something covered by the GPL license, you relinquish the control of any intellectual property you have included in that work, and from there it is subject to the terms of the GPL? I thought that the GPL doesn't cover software code only, but encompass other types of work like art. Wouldn't a trademark distributed with the GPL be subject to the terms of the GPL?

The GPL does not deal with trademark issues at all.

The big deal

[VP]

The big deal in Australia is that Jeremy Malcolm sent the letter to people and companies who have no intentions to use Linux as part of their product names, service names or brands. They had mentioned Linux as one of the platforms their products run on, yet they still got a letter. The letter was also worded poorly (think RIAA-type legalese), that is why the whole uproar started.

I hope Linus, Maddog, and LMI understand that they need to control how the enforcement of the mark is done before they let seemingly well-intentioned lawyers take a short cut and mass-mail a hard-to-comprehend legal form...

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[maxwell demon]

The software is free, but you have to pay to use it.

You don't have to pay to use the software. You don't have to distribute it or anything based on it either. You don't even have to pay for selling it. You do have to pay for calling the thing yor distribute "Linux" (or anything which contains "Linux").

For example, Knoppix will not have to pay anything, because it's not named "Linux", but, well, "Knoppix". I'm not sure if "Linspire" is already considered close enough to "Linux" to need a license, however.

Note that software licensing and trademark licensing are two completely different things. For example, if you make a Linux Distro and name it "T-Linux", I'm sure you'll get trouble with the Deutsche Telekom, depite them not being involved with Linux code at all: AFAIK they have a trademark on the initial "T-" part (T-Online, T-Mobile, ...)

There is no single thing called "IP"

[Peeteriz]

GPL has specific language related to copyrights and patents (which code might infringe).
    GPL does not deal with trademarks, as distributing any source code has nothing to do with trademarks.

    And this issue has nothing to do with Linux (as in, the pile of software called Linux). It does not affect what you can do with the pile of software called Linux.

    However, it does deal with naming your company 'Linux Widgets, Inc', or selling candy with 'Linux' written on it.

Re:There is no single thing called "IP"

[Anonymous Writer]

GPL does not deal with trademarks, as distributing any source code has nothing to do with trademarks.

What about things like icons in a GUI? If a logo is distributed with software as an icon in a GUI, wouldn't that be considered a trademark, and wouldn't it affect what you could do with the software distribution? Or say you got hold of a Linux distribution that has the word "Linux" or the Tux mascot in a splash screen. Isn't the GPL supposed to allow you to take that copy and re-distribute it as it is?

BTW, I'm not arguing for or against this issue, I just thought this issue was covered under the GPL. I could understand that a trademark issue could be raised in some circumstances, for example, with a magazine that uses "Linux" in its title. But as for re-distributing a copy of an installation CD- I thought you could do so without having to make any modifications to it so that it doesn't contain trademarked words or images. In the case of the latter, the GPL would need to encompass trademarks to permit that sort of thing.

Re:There is no single thing called "IP"

[nonlnear]

What about things like icons in a GUI? If a logo is distributed with software as an icon in a GUI, wouldn't that be considered a trademark, and wouldn't it affect what you could do with the software distribution? Or say you got hold of a Linux distribution that has the word "Linux" or the Tux mascot in a splash screen. Isn't the GPL supposed to allow you to take that copy and re-distribute it as it is?

Actually, you can't always redistribute it "as is" without disclaimer. (Or at least, it hasn't yet been clearly established by precedent.)

For example, there is a distro called Tao which is a free distribution based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. While the GPL allows the creator of Tao to redistribute the Red Hat GPLed code, the trademark issues necessitate (in the opinion of the maker of Tao) that further disclaimers come packaged with Tao. (i.e. something to the effect that users may find the RHEL documentation useful, but that it is in no way related to Tao...) Not because the makers of Tao aren't allowed to redistribute them - the GPL ensures that they can. Tao doesn't include the trademarked images/words because if they distribute them without holding trademark rights,

The point is that the GPL ensures the rights of distribution, code modification, use, etc., and it establishes (somewhat) clear boundaries for what can/can't be done in those respects, but any trademark rights issues are independant.

For a simpler example, after you drink a bottle of Evian, you are allowed to reuse the bottle (of course). You are also allowed to use the bottle to create a good for resale. You might not be allowed to refill the bottle with water and sell it as is. Not because you aren't allowed to sell bottled water - you are (as long as you abide by the applicable health/safety codes) - but because selling the unmodified Evian bottle full of water might cause a reasonable buyer to believe that they have purchased an Evian product. The trademark issues have nothing to do with your right to use/reuse any of the items in question (even the label - if you cover any offending trademarks appropriately). They have to do with the representation of trademarks at the point of sale.

Re:There is no single thing called "IP"

[rjw57]

What about things like icons in a GUI? If a logo is distributed with software as an icon in a GUI, wouldn't that be considered a trademark

It depends if it is a trademark. Unlike copyright trademarks don't happen 'by magic'. Just creating a logo wont make it trademarked.

Dupe!

[gr8_phk]

Why do we need to alert /. every time another news source runs across this story?

Re:Dupe!

[MrCopilot]

Linus Speaking is more newsworthy than EF Hutton in the 80s.

Too little too late?

[G3ckoG33k]

There may well be a risk that what is done now will be too little and too late, where the ultimate risk is that Linus lose control over his trademark 'Linux'. Anyone with a better perspective?

Esay workaround...

[ColdGrits]

... just follow the lead of a well-known company and call your product "Limux" or, for the ultra-l33t, "L1nux". Problem solved (unless Torvalds then shows himself to be as evil as MS by suing...).

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[cpt kangarooski]

Trademark law is different from copyright law. The fact that in the US the same governmental agency handles both doesn't make them the same.

The same governmental agency handles both trademarks and copyrights? Which agency is that, exactly? Is it the US Patent and Trademark Office, or the US Copyright Office, or something else?

Re:Laws (Question for lawyers)

[Anonymous Coward]

If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.

If you call your distro "Swazilandix" or "Swaziland Operating Environment", etc, you don't need any license at all.

What does the law say if I call my distro "Luxembourg Integrated Network Unix-like Xecutable"? If OTHER PEOPLE decide to call my product by its acronym, am I liable?

Positive Development for GNU

[amightywind]

I think this is a positive development for GNU proponents. For too long users have been incorrectly refering to their GNU based systems which run the Linux kernel as 'Linux' systems. Now that people must honor the Linux trademark they will be careful to refer to the kernel by that name not the whole system. GNU based systems will be recognised as the federated systems they really are.

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[ifwm]

"You are buying protection." You mean like "protection money" protection? Hmm, sounds familiar somehow...

The REAL question

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is whether Linus is going to ask RMS to stop using the term "GNU/Linux", if Linus gets really pissed off?

The best approach to trademarks: use them

[panurge]

Linus is quite right. I will go further and suggest that it is a good idea for small developers to create their own trademarks, and this is especially beneficial in a FOSS world.

Trademarks are not expensive or hard to come by, believe it or not. You may be told you need an agent. Believe me, if you are intelligent enough to be a software developer, it is easy to navigate trademark paperwork. You do not need an agent. You need to behave like a developer using a new technology, i.e. read the documents, follow the rules. (Yes, I practice what I preach. I took out 2 trademarks last year, for a total of about 10 hours of actual work starting from scratch, though admittedly it was not the first time.)
My big recommendation: develop a generic trademark that does not depend on appearance. It is a nice stealth weapon.

Why are trademarks nice?

• You use them to protect your own name and reputation
• You can use them in documentation you produce; if anyone steals your work and is stupid enough to leave in the trademark (yes, they are) you have a nice clear infringement and their lawyers will probably tell them to stop or pay up.
• They actually get you taken seriously.
• They do not cause complicated copyright and patent issues of themselves.

I have to add a caveat. In the US trademarks are a bit broken. A trademark in one area is allowed to spill into another, so that our favorite software company was allowed to prevent another company, not a software company, calling itself Gentium. In Europe the rules are clearer and enforced, so if I trademark "we make things that don't suck" as a mark of a software company, I cannot then prevent (say) a manufacturer of compressors from using the same descriptive mark. But that doesn't invalidate the idea. Trademarking the name of a software product, or a phrase associated with it, means that someone cannot simply steal your name and reputation even though they can, perfectly legitimately, reuse your GPLed code.

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[VP]

Doh! I mixed copyright with patents...

I should have said: The practice to lump together copyright, patents, and trademarks as "Intelectual Property" in order to dumb down these concepts, doesn't make them the same...

Listen to RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to start calling your distro's what they are: GNU. The Linux kernel is but a small part, is it really worth paying big bucks for?

Re:Listen to RMS

[thaig]

GNU is also becoming a small part of the distro. There may be a lot of GNU licensed packages but by megabyte and possibly by number of files I would suggest that GNU's contribution is not enough for "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" to be a fair description.

Most of the GNU tools are just applications and many of them are not strictly critical for the operation of a machine so I don't really see a dividing line that separates them from anything else on the dictribution.

Re:Listen to RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

"GNU is also becoming a small part of the distro."

On my system it suddenly grew to be one of the biggest chunks, perhaps I should go back to using KDE?!

"many of them are not strictly critical for the operation of a machine"

And many of them are.

Re:Listen to RMS

[dbIII]

There may be a lot of GNU licensed packages but by megabyte and possibly by number of files I would suggest that GNU's contribution

The original suggestion recognised this, and the sheer number of files in XFree86 and the proposed name was LiGnuX. It seemed pretty silly at the time, then a few years later newbies were flaming me if I dared to say anything about the kernel without putting a prefix in front of it.

Say what you will, but it is not customary for people who are not involved to choose the name of projects run by others - even if it for what was seen as the noble purpose of advertising the gnu name.

Re:Laws (Question for lawyers)

[ObiWanKenblowme]

I doubt you'd be liable in that case, but the trademark owner could sue the pants off you if he/she/they ever found you referring to your distro as the abbreviated "LINUX" yourself.

Read what Linus has to say

[hconnellan]

Here, and be careful he might be reading what you say.

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[advocate_one]

Note that software licensing and trademark licensing are two completely different things. For example, if you make a Linux Distro and name it "T-Linux", I'm sure you'll get trouble with the Deutsche Telekom, depite them not being involved with Linux code at all: AFAIK they have a trademark on the initial "T-" part (T-Online, T-Mobile, ...)

heaven help you if you start up a support business called "Linux'R'Us"... you'll have Linus and Toys'R'Us(TM) on your back

Heehee

[ShoobieRat]

"...license the Linux trademark..."

License their trademark...? :) How very Microsoft of them. :)

Agree to disagree

[PacketScan]

I'm Torn. I don't know what to make of this. Hopefully it's just to keep the name "pure".

That is how it is done

[houghi]

1) Create a free OS
2) Make it popular
3) put a trademark on it
4) profit

We are all sooo 00wn3d.

How is this trademark enforcable?

[stubear]

Linux has fallen into common usage prior to Linus asserting rights to the trademark. Trademarks are an "enforce them or lose them" proposition and Linus, IMHO, let his trademark become too common to enforce now. If I were one of the companies he's extorting I'd try to have the mark made unenforceable due to its commonality and be done with it.

Besides, if the code's free, why isn't the mark? Shouldn't there be an OSS license to handle the trademark? As long as you agree to follow these basic ethical guidelines you may use this trademark for free. If you fail to act ethically, according to common OSS standards you are no longer permitted to use the trademark in association with your goods or services. Or something to that effect.

Re:How is this trademark enforcable?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Linux has fallen into common usage prior to Linus asserting rights to the trademark.

Really?

What the hell else does "Linux" refer to besides the GNU/Linux OS?

Name one thing not related to the OS that the word "Linux" refers to.

Or did you mean that the word "Linux" was commonly used to refer to the Linux OS, which is a completely different concept than the word "Linux" being already diluted in it's meaning when he Trademarked it.

Wont this encourage cybersquatting?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I have to do is buy up a bunch of whateverLinux names from LMI before somebody else does.
Then I can sue for infringement of my trademark.

Maybee it's best to develop, build, and sell software in Asia after all.

GNU/Linux?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I wonder how this is going to affect the Linux vs GNU/Linux labeling/branding that RMS keeps insisting on?

Re:GNU/Linux?

[rjw57]

In no way as far as I can see. How would it?

Re:GNU/Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Linus controlls the trademark on Linux, not RMS.

According to Linus, you are free to use Linux in whatever you want. (Tivo is a good example, GPL violations being a separate issure). But if you want to brand your product Linux you have to subliscense the name. RMS is trying to rebrand Linux with the GNU.

RedHat Linux(R)

[TapeCutter]

"this must be a kick in the teeth.

Yes a $1M dollar business is about the size of a decent newsagent, so I can see all the bankrupt SME's this is going to create. I mean it's either $5000 or start putting an (R) behind the word Linux. Really, how can anyone even think about starting a SME, when you have to pay those sort of fees to remove the (R) from your product. That (R) plastered all over the marketing material will crush innovative start-ups, it will be obvious to every prospective customer that NewHat Linux(R) has not been blessed by the big T. How can any SME make a profit when this sort of monopolistic power makes it impossible to "leverage" the fame of Mr T?

Linus has gone too far, he is forcing others to make a name for themselves while he keeps the benifits of his own name all to himself, he must be stopped. /sarcasm

"RedHat Linux(R)" has 30-40 google hits compared to 900,000+ for "RedHat Linux", if RedHat do not "partner" with Linus then the ratio will change significantly in the next few years.

Re:RedHat Linux(R)

[ray-auch]

I mean it's either $5000 or start putting an (R) behind the word Linux. Really, how can anyone even think about starting a SME, when you have to pay those sort of fees to remove the (R) from your product

Read the site. It is nothing of the sort.

Attribution ((R) etc.) is required for everyone, whether you need to buy a sublicense or not - but different rules apply.

Sublicense is required for anyone - nothing to do with removing the (R) from the product.


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


To avoid the sublicense requirement you have to remove the "Linux" from the product name / company name / any other trademark usage.

If redhat do not sign up for one of these licenses then it has to be "RedHat" - not "RedHat Linux(R)" or "RedHat Linux".

Slashdot crowd is getting sad

[linuxguy]

It used to be that I would learn some really insightful on a subject every now and then. But lately it seems that Slashdot has been mobbed by clueless individuals, including the editors.

If Linus needed to cash in on Linux he would pick trademark? Clueless morons!

And most of you probably dont remember when someone back in 1996 registered Linux as their trademark in the US and started asking companies to pay 25% of their revenues.

How do you protect the name Linux from such thieves? It costs a lot of money to do this on a global scale. Not everything in life is free.

Re:Slashdot crowd is getting sad

[ShoobieRat]

Too many Slashdot-ers are so busy trying to stick-it to Microsoft that they don't pay attention to anything anymore. If they can burn Microsoft on something, no matter how trivial, they jump on it. It seems they do nothing else.

So I'm not surprised you're noticing this.

Ok, just to make this absolutely clear...

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to register your Linux-related product with LMI when:

1. You are earning money from it

2. You don't want someone else to register that name and send you a cease-and-desist once you've started using it

You don't need to register your Linux-related product with LMI when:

1. You are not concerned with someone else registering the name and sending you a cease-and-desist once you've started using it

2. It does not contain the word 'Linux', even if it incorporates a sizeable chunk or even all of the Linux kernel code

There we go. If you have any questions, please email them to Martin Taylor (martinta@microsoft.com).

Remember William Della Croce, Jr. ???

[linuxguy]

Most of you probably do not remember him. He fraudulently registered the Linux trademark in 1996 and asked people to pay for use of the name "Linux".

Many of you now seem to think the name Linux does not need to be protected. You either have short memory or are too young to know what battles Linus had to fight to get here.

Most of you are free-loaders anyway. Interested only in what you are getting for free and contributing nothing back. Most of you given half the chance would have really cashed out on Linux, unlike Linus Torvalds.

See: http://www2.linuxjournal.com/article/2425 for some of the history.

GNU, GNU, and GNU

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Just another reason to call the system by it's proper name, GNU.

Re:GNU, GNU, and GNU

[Master of Transhuman]

Go here: http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Tradem arks.html which says the following:

2.3 Trademarks

Please do not include any trademark acknowledgements in GNU software packages or documentation.

Trademark acknowledgements are the statements that such-and-such is a trademark of so-and-so. The GNU Project has no objection to the basic idea of trademarks, but these acknowledgements feel like kowtowing, and there is no legal requirement for them, so we don't use them.

What is legally required, as regards other people's trademarks, is to avoid using them in ways which a reader might reasonably understand as naming or labeling our own programs or activities. For example, since "Objective C" is (or at least was) a trademark, we made sure to say that we provide a "compiler for the Objective C language" rather than an "Objective C compiler". The latter would have been meant as a shorter way of saying the former, but it does not explicitly state the relationship, so it could be misinterpreted as using "Objective C" as a label for the compiler rather than for the language.

Re:GNU, GNU, and GNU

[ray-auch]

So "GNU/Linux" becomes an impossible term - the Linux bit requires trademark acknowledgement, the GNU bit requires (well, requests) the opposite.

Re:GNU, GNU, and GNU

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm not sure about that.

"GNU/Linux" as a TRADEMARK would have to be sublicensed from LMI. As far as I can tell, the word "GNU" is not trademarked by the FSF, nor is "GNU/Linux." They simply say Linux should be so referred to because of the GNU software included with the Linux kernel.

"GNU/Linux" as a TERM used to describe Linux would not be subject to licensing under fair use. And this seems to be what the FSF is doing.

Re:GNU, GNU, and GNU

[ray-auch]

Yes, but describing your Linux distribution as "GNU/Linux", eg. "Debian GNU/Linux" would require license, and trademark acknowledgement (in the documentation), for the Linux use.

FSF say "Please do not include any trademark acknowledgements in GNU software packages or documentation.".

So if you are eg. Debian, do you acknowledge or not ?

I Hope This Kills Linux

[JohnDeHope3]

I'd like to see linux die. Then maybe all the crazy open source guys would start a new OS that didn't inherit all the byzantine UNIX crazyness. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about having POSIX compliance and all. But it'd be nice if the OSS world gave me an alternative to MS and Apple that didn't leave me feeling like I was living in 1960.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is absolutely right.

Ask and ye shall recieve.

[MrCopilot]

I asked for Linus to clarify http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159474&c id=13355509

He did. http://lwn.net/Articles/148590/

I don't tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.

Umm, I resent that, I'm in it for the +5 Funny.

But I was really hoping this particular wanking session wouldn't overflow into Linux-kernel.

How could it not? Oh, I don't know, maybe by answering on the wanking session board instead of LKML.

I do appreciate his position. However, the whole thing makes me feel icky.

Cease and Desist from a Linux® Organization. Kinda Like getting a disease from immunization (no offeense RFK jr.)

In the interest of FUD-Stomping I offer this : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/
Don't miss this part. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2005 jul18.htm
That's just in th U.S.A. It is expensive and Requires all of this licensing.

My advice, Choose another name for you Distro/Service Company. Attribute Linux® trademark to Linus. Hmm, Time to change sigs.

Common Law Trademarks, and GPL

[mattr]

I would like to mention two interesting points about common law trademarks and the GPL, but first..

IANAL. Also I personally believe this trademark initiative is wrong-headed, mainly because it has led to at least one tragedy (thelinuxapprentice.com, now down directly due to the scary dunning letters in Australia).

Also it has nothing to do with quality assurance, mainly it is a defensive tactic and as such *should* be maintained, but not by someone making a living at this, and not including calculations on how to maximize what the traffic will bear. The trademark should be sold for $1 or the minimum, regardless of whether it will make the trademark seem worthless, because of the innate reason the community needs defense and minimum burden.

The amount of money involved is very significant outside the U.S., and even in the U.S. a million dollar per year company could use the $10K to buy 20 $500 pcs, or hire a talented professor to do important research part time, etc. Where does it say they have a million bucks to burn?

It is also a barrier to entry to a market that has major distros with Linux in the name, and Linux has also become a generic term.

However I would submit that linux (with a lower case "l") or maybe vmlinuz? does talk about the kernel. So capitalized should be okay.

It does seem that the initiative violates Clause 1 of the GPL,
though the later part of the GPL seems to suggest it might simply forbid you from using or distributing the otherwise unencumbered software.

Okay about common law trademark. Google it. I found this link and this link which look interesting. While perhaps not as strong in terms of protection, it would seem that if you have a popular program used in many states or countries online, it is already trademarked in a sense.

If true, this would mean that the idea of having to force people to purchase liscenses is bogus, since surely Linux is well known by now.

It also would render more transparent this unfortunate expedition of Linus' which as he says, was explicitly created so as to control how linux is used (what can be called linux).

I would have a little less problem if it was automatically accepted as long as you are really making something with the linux kernel in it, or even if it was not the linux kernel but it ran well-known "linux" applications, KDE, etc.

In this sense, there is no need for such a wide-ranging crusade for trademarks. All you need is for a nice-sized fund to be created to hire a lawyer in case somebody truly evil shows up and tries to destroy linux by FUD based on use of the linux name. Otherwise, I think they should just skip trademark enforcement, not worrying about so-called dilution. The POINT of linux is dilution in that you can use it to do anything you want! Why don't you just put something about that in the GPL and be done with it? If it isn't really linux, then tell people about it. How much money will it really cost per year to do a minimum reasonable job using inexpensive people? Anybody with a real answer? Any reason why it even has to be based in the first world?

OT, similar cases

[ImaLamer]

I heard once that to use "San Francisco" commercially it costs you 25 cents USD. If you set a movie in San Francisco, you've got to pay the city 25 cents _every time_ the name is said or shows up in the film.

I never believed it until reading that about KFC.

(Yes, Kentucky is a state and yes I'm planning a distribution called "Kentucky Linux")

If you call your distro gnu/linux

[Leninix]

What if you call your distro Foo Gnu/Linux ? I'm not sure you could trademark Gnu/Linux, as Gnu appelation is much older than Linux, even Gnu/Linux distros are older than Linus' own first distribution, based on Minix. If this appelation is trademark free, then I guess everybody who don't want to pay 200$ for this should just add the prefix gnu.

Easy Solution

[ph4te]

just call your product l00nix :)

Re:Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is how open source or should I say microsoft competitors always seem to shoot themselves in the foot just when things start going great. IBM did it with micro channel, Apple did it by beeing so greedy with their O.S and almost died,
Redhat did it when they saw the dollar signs and hardly want to give bad anything. Caldera did it after buying SCO and now Linus ?
Well, this will be sweet news indeed for microsoft.
It sounds almost like someone took over Linus's brain if this is true. It adds yet more uncertainty to the linux. I can imagine not long down the road that after c&d letters, we'll see a sco like move where these people start black mailing some companies by suing their customers for using a product that violates a trademark , just to get them to pay up.
Anybody wants to bet ?

Re:Easy Solution

[eneville]

Only if 'Linux' is in your product name. It's perfectly ok to use Linux on your systems without paying anything to Linux(tm) Inc.

You will however have to pay money if you want to call yourself "My Linux Babe Inc(tm)."

Stop spreading FUD.

Buuurn.

[coolGuyZak]

Ooh! Ooh! Let me get in on this pointless flamewar too!!!

You're a buffoon.

Ok, so can we call it over now, or should I bring out the big guns?

Personally, I find nothing wrong with the quote. Outrage tends to imply self-image issues ;)

Re:Buuurn.

[coolGuyZak]

Outrage tends to imply self-image issues ;)

Clarification: In situations like this. It's completely different in other situations... For instance, if I found out that Prez. Bush ate a newborn baby for breakfast every morning... completely different situation.

god... damn... timer...

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[ray-auch]

Informative ? more like misleading.

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

link

Show me the Money

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't about Money, the license would cost $5. Maybe less. This is about money.

mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

for speaking sensibly and not spreading FUD. This is slashdot damnit!

Does this apply to Linux distros without "Linux"?

[planetoid]

For example, the SystemRestoreCD is a Linux distribution, but it doesn't actually have Linux in its name. Does this still apply, however, since the kernel in that distro still makes mention to "Linux" when you use it?

If so, can you just do a find-and-replace on "Linux" changing it to something completely different on the entire source code, re-compile, and it would still be legal as long as you still adhere to the GNU license?

Dup but not hack job

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a dup, but perhaps not as recognizable, since this one isn't an alarmist hack job.

it's simple

[timmarhy]

1.release a product for "free" 2.wait fro tons of people to use it 3.find some bullshit loophole to charge them money 4.profit! so glad i don't use linux

Re:it's simple

[idlemachine]

If that's what you think is happening here, it's pretty clear you don't use your brain all that much either.

A MS distro without the word Linux...

[pallmall1]

... could be called Microsux without being charged?

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1 Flamebait)

[r6144]

Assuming malicious intent in "most of you" is never acceptable.

The KFC story is BS

[belmolis]

The Snopes article about KFC's name change linked to by parent is a spoof! If you click on the more information link at the bottom of the page, it takes you to this page, which explains that everything in that section, including the KFC article, is a spoof, intended to warn people against relying on authority without checking things out themselves.

Naming someone else's project

[dbIII]

GNU based systems which run the Linux kernel as 'Linux' systems.

I've hurd that gnu has it's own operating system. This LiGnuX name suggestion was stupid years ago, and it's still silly to rename someone else's project with a prefix. If gnu want naming rights they should put together their own distribution and then they get to choose the name - which is why "Debian GNU/Linux" is the only gnu/linux, others you will see have names like RedHat Enterprise Linux or whatever.

When RMS suggested that both the gnu tools and X were part of the linux operating system (the LiGnuX name) I disagreed with him - where do you draw the line between applications and the OS. Why should gcc be considered part of the OS when a machine build from binaries is quite happy without it?

GNU based systems will be recognised as the federated systems they really are.

WTF does this mean? I am an english speaker but not a US english speaker, is there some silly patriotic reference I should be getting here?

Re:Naming someone else's project

[amightywind]

WTF does this mean? I am an english speaker but not a US english speaker, is there some silly patriotic reference I should be getting here?

It means GNU/Linux systems are a union of separately developed parts. No nationalism or partisanship implied, nitwit.

Re:Naming someone else's project

[dbIII]

It means GNU/Linux systems are a union of separately developed parts

Thanks, it's good to know that I'm not missing something and that its just some new use of an existing word you made up yourself. It's also good to see people who question a use like that are dismissed as nitwits. It took RMS a lot of work and a lot of press to redefine the words "free" and "open" in the context of software - others who make up new meanings should expect to work just as hard.

Give up on your old silly LiGnuX derived renaming, the current silly fashion of renaming linux is FLOSS until a few more letters get added on.

There's a lot more in the distros I use than just the gnu tools and linux - which is why they get named by the people who put the distributions together and not RMS. This has been going on for years. Newbies who came in late flaming people about not using the RMS chosen name are annoying, and those who have been around a lot longer and are not doing it out of some political agenda to advertise gnu should know better in my opinion.

Re:The trouble with 'free'

[Agret]

You must protect your name. If someone copyrights your name they can stop you from using it. It's one of the stupid things that copyrights help avoid....and cause