Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Trademark Fun Continues

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-read dept.

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.

6 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. This is a good idea by TurdTapper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
  2. Re:Why charge for it? by Q2Serpent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. To end this for once and for all by jurt1235 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  4. Re:Why charge for it? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. Re:The trouble with 'free' by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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, ...)
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. Re:Linus Torvalds explains it by ifwm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.