Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Claims Linux Trademark Doesn't Matter
Tontoman writes "ZDNet UK reports on an interview with Richard Stallman with the Sydney Morning Herald. From the article: '"Free software means you're free to run it, study it, change it, redistribute it, and distribute modified versions the way cooks do with recipes. What names you're allowed to call a program is a side issue." The Linux trademark became an issue last month after a lawyer acting on behalf of Linux creator Linus Torvalds wrote to 90 Australian companies asking that they sign a statutory declaration waiving exclusive rights to the trademark's use.'"
So, Stallman says that this issue is just blowing smoke, and that it distracts from the issue at hand, namely his pet causes...
Well, I would say that names are incredibly important, possibly even more so than all these political causes (simply because people can't be bothered to read long political theses, but can deal with name recognition).
Why do you think Linux has proven so much more "successful" that the *BSDs in the business sphere?
The name "Linux" has brand recognition - at the moment, it's trendy, hip and cool (go the Peter Russel reference =)...and companies want to be seen to be riding the wave. I've seen idiotic people say Linux is cool, I want to use Linux, with absolutely no idea what it is, simply because they've heard that all the geeky computer people are apparently using it.
Torvalds, and all the other contributors have worked hard to build up this name, and if companies can be made to respect this, then all the better.
cya,
Victor
Also, trademark protection isn't new. Why don't you phone Red Hat and ask to make a RHEL based distro, still keeping all Red Hat's insignia? Or maybe try Debian, or Firefox, or anyone else. I don't understand why people have a problem with this.
Furthermore, if RMS wants people to be remembered, he should fight for everyone to be remembered, whether he agrees with their development model or not. Otherwise, he's just being hypocritical.
No. Linux is open for modification and distribution... but you can't call your modified version Linux unless Linus lets you. This is a very reasonable position, after all, if you make some modifications, and they turn out to crash the kernel after three minutes of uptime, why should the mainline Linux (and, by association, Linus) suffer a stain to their reputation from your crappy coding ?
You are still free to distribute your modified piece-of-shit version, you just can't claim that it's Linux.
Impossible, since almost all the code in Linux is copyrighted by someone else than Linus, and licensed under various GPL-compatible licenses. Linus (or his lawyer) would need to get all of these people to agree to either transfer the copyrights to Linus or at least relicense their code to him in some way that would let it be included in a proprietary product.
And even if they would, nothing would stop anyone from simply taking the last free version of Linux and releasing it under a new name.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Never trust journalism that seeks to promote conflict between parties. It is too easy to take words out of context, to ask people to make statements on subjects they would rather ignore, and to do what journalists are generally paid to do - fill the pages with controversy and "news".
Point 1: RMS is the genius behind the GPL, the FSF tools, and has dedicated his life to making Linux, however you call it, come true. Insulting RMS is a sign of ignorance, bad manners, or bad faith.
Point 2: Linux is a mark and a commodity technology. The goal of trademarking Linux and enforcing that mark through licensing is to protect the "brand" from those who seek to harm it. But that is a short-term logic, and it ignores the underlying fact: a commodity technology needs no name, no brand, because it does not compete on that basis. No-one ever trademarked "TCP/IP" (afaik) and it would have been both ridiculous and counter-productive to have tried.
So RMS is spot-on, even if he does not explain it quite the way I'd like to hear. The name you give Linux is only meaningful if you're one of the vendors supporting it today. It's what Linux is, and does, not its name, that guarantees its place as the commodity OS of the future.
My blog
His point is that 22% of the code in a typical "Linux" distribution is written by the GNU, more than (pulling a number out my ass) any 3 other "authors" (or organisations) put together, wheras less than 1% is Linux. If you want to call it GNU/MIT/KDE/..., go on, but if you're going to call it by a single thing, that should be GNU, not Linux.
I am trolling
You people don't give RMS and GNU enough credit. Without GNU, GNU/Linux is just a kernel. Worthless. I realize that if it wasn't for GNU, Linux would have found some other system tools or written their own, but the point is to give credit where it is deserved.
RMS shouldn't be blamed for encouraging people to say GNU/Linux. The system is just as much GNU as it is Linux.
Also:
GNU != RMS, as plenty of people seem to think. Wanting people to put GNU into the name of Linux is not trying to remember RMS. It's remembering GNU.
To you they may matter, but Stallman speaks for himself, not everybody, and, apparently, not you, ok?
To him the name doesn't matter, because he's not after being successful in the way you imply. He doesn't care what the companies use.
To Stallman only the existance of a free development platform matters, and that existance is practically guaranteed due to the GPL and GNU by now (Technically HURD isn't necessary anymore, because the Linux Kernel is GPL'ed). If everybody used it, that'd be a bonus, but the mere existance is the one-and-only goal.
Try to see him more as the philosopher he is, not caring about marketing and commercial success, but taking care his ideas (Specifically that it should always be possible to use a free development platform) continue to exist (And one website, hosted privately, practically could do that), no matter what.
Oh, and, everybody, please don't automacally assume I'm on Stallmans "side" here, I just don't like him being misunderstood. He's an idealist, which is not necessarily moronic.
Why does giving credit where credit is due, or naming, or trademarking have anything to do with open source? If something is released under the GPL (as RMS would want it) then it's yours to do whatever you like with. Change the code. Fork it. The code is free (as in speech and beer).
So why call it anything? Do I call my Toyota a Ford/Toyota after the father of the production line? I mean, without the modern production line, where would Toyota be? We should give Henry Ford the credit, right?
So why does RMS care? Would he object to me changing the names of the variables in his GPL code? He has given me permission, under the terms of the license, to do with it what I please, so long as I release the code if I distribute binaries. Sure I can rename it. Just like I can with variables or methods in the code itself.
I can't argue that GNU's contribution is insignificant. But who cares what the name is? And prefixing things with GNU is just ridiculous. The point has been made - where do you draw the line? Am I running Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin on my Mac at the moment? Maybe MacOSX is a better name for it, and is more easily marketable.
I think I've made my stand pretty clear on this one. Call Linux whatever you like. Part of something being GPL is that you can rename it if you so please. And please feel free (as in speech) to drop the GNU from GNU/Linux.
Linux has a part of Linus' name in it
Last I checked, there is no GNU in "Stallman", so yeah, he is fighting for everyone and not just himself. The whole idea of defending freedom is rarely about oneself, I don't see Stallman being oppressed, so yeah, he's doing it for other people.
And you might get some smug people dissing him out, but the bottom line is most developers, even when they have the choice of BSD-style mozilla-style, and whatever, STILL choose the GPL. I don't know why people have such a problem with this, people choose the GPL on their own Stallman doesn't force them to do it. It's their choice, and it's the most popular licence, why all this venom? Deal with it ffs. Every time Stallman is mentioned a flood of tears spills from BSD and other licence fanatics, fine, you chose yours, I don't mind BSD at all. But stop whinging about the GPL ok. People choose it, and IMO for good reason. I don't have some huge chip on my shoulder cause the BSD devs choose the BSD-style licences, but it seems some BSD and other (SUN) have a big cry everytime stallmans name is mentioned.
And yeah, I think it's reasonable to call it GNU, it is the GNU NOT UNIX system. It isn't Unix, and most of it is licenced under the GPL. And the vast majority of it wasn't coded by a one Linus T., the vast majority of it was coded by people who *chose* to licence under the GPL. So hey, why not call it GNU?
God there are some snarky people around, I wish they would all go to BSD-land and just STOP COMPLAINING. It happens EVERY time, and it's boring.
I've got a pretty simple solution, licence your stuff under the licence you think is best and STFU about personal attacks on other people ok?
I very much doubt RMS has a problem with PDF. The format may be controlled by a single company, but the full specification is released and developers are Free (in the full-on RMS-compatible sense of the word) to implement their own readers or authoring software (contrasted with SWF, where the specification is available for people wishing to output Flash, but not for those wishing to read it). If, at any point, they added feature that were not part of the published specification, then RMS would start objecting.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If he wants people to use 'GNU' perhaps he should have come up with a better name. I mean, even if there was a decent way to pronounce it, it's named after something that looks like a goat.
I, along with everyone else, will just keep calling the whole system 'Linux', and by done with it.
Which is why he advocates for the system to be called GNU/Linux and not plainly GNU. Makes sense to me.
It seems unfortunate that Linus was basically forced to take the Linux mark away from the shyster lawyer who registered the mark and was then using it to shakedown people -- once Linus got it, he had to protect it. So then he's forced to play a game that he really doesn't want to play in the first place (otherwise he would have grabbed the mark, charged companies in the first place, and so on).
I never really got why trademarks are important, but this sorry case (and the Unix (TM) AT&T stuff) makes it clear -- this stuff, in the real world, really does matter.
I'm surprised Tux is not trademarked. The BSD world works a bit different: McKusick trademarked the red-demon who represents BSD. That's his, and you need permission to use it. Although I guess you could make your own red-devil mascot -- but that's a trademark issue, and perhaps you'd better talk to a lawyer.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Judging from the package sizes, it looks like the majority of the lines of code that I actually use day to day were written by the KDE developers. So I guess I'll just call my system KDE.
Why does giving credit where credit is due, or naming, or trademarking have anything to do with open source?
It has do with promoting the beliefs of the Free Software Foundation, which are not about open source, but about Free Software!
So why does RMS care?
Because he cares about your freedom, not about the openness of the source.
The FSF was set up to achieve political ends - software freedom. Linux was written to achieve personal ends - Linus wanted a Unix.
Linus doesn't make political statements because he doesn't have a political agenda.
Stallman makes political statements because he has a political agenda.
By the way there is nothing WRONG in having a political agenda, after all, politics is about how we set the world up for ourselves, whether it's going to be a pleasant place to live or a shitty place to live.
So Stallman bangs on about GNU because he wants people to remember freedom.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Yes, a lot of the code comes from GNU, and Stallman is trying to ride the coattails of the Linux wave. It's about making sure his organization is still relevant and a leader in open source software.
Which is silly, because his organization is a leader in open source software by virtue of it's large size and diversity of projects. That is, it has that title by merit. As far as I can recall, he never asked us to call some of the platforms I worked on GNU/Digital UNIX, or GNU/Tru64, or GNU/HPUX. The only reason he's jumping on Linux is because it provides an easy target for cheap-shot advertisement.
Aside from that, there's little historical precedent to do what he is asking for. Many pieces of engineering are named after the one critical component that is essential for it's operation. It's evern sillier when you're attaching a conflicting brand name and you're not the creator of the critical component. For example:
Nuclear Reactor (not IBM/Nuclear Reactor)
Jet Aeroplane (not Goodyear/Jet Airplane)
Steam Engine (not Taco Bell/Steam Engine)
Computer Keyboard (not BOSE/Computer Keyboard)
Textbook (not Kelloggs/Textbook)
Linux Kernel (not GNU/Linux Kernel)
It's an even odder arrangement when adding two different brands in the same marketplace.
Kellogs/Quaker Oats
General Mills/Betty Crocker Biquick
Lexmark/HP printer
GNU/RedHat
GNU/SuSE
GNU/Linux
(the only reason the last one isn't odd is because you've been told via countless articles and advertisements that it isn't)
Stallman has done some wonderful things for computing, but now his tactics are hurting him just as much as they used to help him. It's sad to see him demanding equal air time in the name of a product. He should just require (as others do) that it mention somewhere in the materials that it uses GNU software.
If he just managed his project well, and got HURD out of the door, the need for a LINUX would probably have been met. Instead, GNU mostly lives as an add-on to other people's products. It's a shame that Stallman desires a "social license" that requires inclusion of his trademark in other people's trademark.
Like my Bridestone/BOSE/Pontiac Grand AM?
To add *some* weight to it...
1) GNU tools can be found in the following installations:
* FreeBSD, et al
* OS X
* SCO
* Solaris (GNU added by my IT department?)
2) However, I've not heard RMS insist these be called GNU/BSD, etc. -- only GNU/Linux.
So why call it anything? Do I call my Toyota a Ford/Toyota after the father of the production line? I mean, without the modern production line, where would Toyota be? We should give Henry Ford the credit, right?
We don't include "Ford" in Toyota because there are no Ford components in Toyota's cars. But in virtually every Linux distro, there's far more GNU code running than Linux code.
I can't argue that GNU's contribution is insignificant. But who cares what the name is? And prefixing things with GNU is just ridiculous. The point has been made - where do you draw the line? Am I running Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin on my Mac at the moment? Maybe MacOSX is a better name for it, and is more easily marketable.
Actually, using your logic, you wouldn't call OS X "Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin," nor would you call it "MacOS X." You would call it "Mach" because that's the kernel it uses.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
When RMS said that "names don't matter", I thought it was pretty damn obvious that he meant "names don't matter to the freedoms Free Software provides". Upon reading all these comments, I guess it wasn't so obvious after all.
If you read the GPL, it says:
Trademarks are a legal way of enforcing something the GPL states as being favourable.
Yeah, when it comes to marketing, names matter. But in the context of what RMS actually promotes, Free Software, being able to use somebody else's trademark is not a necessary freedom that must be protected. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
We don't include "Ford" in Toyota because there are no Ford components in Toyota's cars.
So; my Lotus, which has a Toyota engine, Toyota gearbox, Toyota running gear, and a Lotus-modified Toyota enigine control system, then logically be called a Lotus/Toyota
Makes sense.... after all a car without an engine wouldn' t do much, would it?
So.... why my isn't my car called a Lotus/Toyota Elise, but instead is just called a Lotus Elise?
Oh, I know why
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Some in the media are portraying this as disagreeing with Linus, but they just don't get it. The trademark issue is orthogonal. You can freely use, modify, and redistribute the software that is typically known as "Linux" freely - that is what RMS cares about. Linus cares about that, and making sure that the name "Linux" isn't ridden down by fly-by-night outfits that might look to make a quick buck.
The fact that this is getting stirred up now is fishy, because the trademark has existed in the U.S. for quite some time.
Fade out, fade in. Today, we have the Free (as in freedom *and* beer) Operating System that is part GNU, part Linux, and even part BSD (I stumble upon the occasional BSD program running on my Linux system ), and part everything else. In a commercial world, there'd be trademarks and copyrights and logos and every other byte of binary on your disk would be the stupid trademark/OS EULA/NDA warning of legal repercussions, etc. Windows users, get *any* hex editor, open *any* Windows program, you'll see "Microsoft" written in the ASCII somewhere: this is what I'm talking about. But this is Linux. Nobody really owns it all per se, because we basement hackers and renegade computer users and indignant MIT lab rats wrote it all ourselves, and don't really care about becoming millionaires or dominating the world about it, so long as we have our free system.
Now, let's pull our heads into the Physical, Real World for a minute and quit worrying about hypothetically this and pedantic definition that: What we're talking about is what most of the world calls "Linux". So, when you go shopping for Linux distros, you don't type "free software distros" in Google, and when you need help installing Linux, you don't go into a #GNU chat and say, "I need help installing my free software". You call it Linux, Slashdot calls it Linux, we all found this discussion because we recognized the name of Linux.
Now, the copyright infringement you're hearing about has, in fact, already started. Porn sites are already trying to snag hits using the word "Linux". No, I'm not kidding, and I'm not about to post links to them and let them enjoy a lot of hits. Type "Linux" into search engines with the most unexpected keywords that would only imply you were looking for guides, HOWTOs, and such, and you'll get the occasional Easter Egg. This demonstrates the shaky legal ground that Linux is on, and why we're doing this.
PS, when you hear somebody blowing off their big bazoo about "Linux", "Open Source", "Free Software", or "GNU", take into account that Stallman, Torvalds, and their tribal bard, Eric S. Raymond, are 99% less likely to be full of hooey than anybody else.
The only reason he's jumping on Linux is because it provides an easy target for cheap-shot advertisement.
Stallman's not jumping on Linux, and Stallman isn't sending letters out of the blue to users telling them to license the word/entity/trademark/whatever GNU, or setting a fee scale for it. The Linux Mark Institute is doing that.
The real reason Linux® is being "protected" and not given to the public domain as a generic trademark is not to prevent "tarnishing of the Linux name," it's being done because the larger commercial vendors and users want the name trademarked for their protection.
With all the legal heavy-lifting the large organizations like IBM, Red Hat, and AutoZone are doing against the SCOboys, I can see why they want "Linux" to become "Linux®", but in reality, the term "Linux" is already generic (like "Pizza",) and should be declared such. So, instead of jumping on Stallman and saying "He should just require (as others do) that it mention somewhere in the materials that it uses GNU software", perhaps Linus should release "Linux®" to the public domain, where it would be protected by a "social license" instead of a very restrictive legal one.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
All that gcc brought to the table was support for non-x86 architectures.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
I honestly don't know why there is such hostility towards GNU or such a willngness to people to close their eyes to vast importance and goodness of what they've given us. Yeah, some mythical others could have achieved something, but they didn't. GNU was there to take care of it.
Instead of watered-down ZDNet thing, you should read the original Sydney Morning Herald interview.
ZDNet failed to see the importance of the following paragraph (so they just omitted that):
Without this, ZDNet article might give a false impression that Mr. Stallman is inconsistent (i.e., on one hand he says that the name is irrelevant, on the other hand he implies that the name is important, i.e. GNU/this GNU/that).
I've never met Stallman (have you?) and I'll admit that his persona, as portrayed in the press, comes across as somewaht annoying. But this is true for most most iconoclasts. But his bio certainly doesn't make his life sound like a "train wreck".
How about this: You post your bio here and let us compare your accomplishments with his and decide whose life is a train wreck. Who the fuck were you again?
It would also be better if you made the effort to try to point out the errors or inconsistencies in his "crybaby" positions instead of engaging in simple-minded ad hominem attacks.
Does anyone really care about his opinion anymore?
Yes. Has anyone ever cared about yours (except me?)
Do you have some proof of this, or are you just making up facts ?
"Hmm. Picking GPL lets people redistribute and modify my software, but keeps them from preventing me from merging those changes back to the my version and keeps various companies from ripping off my work. It has also been used by lots of people for a long time, and was written by an actual lawyer who actually knows what the law says, so it is unlikely to have nasty surprises hidden in it. Yep, sounds good to me."
Despite the current emphasis on individuality, the tendency of humans to look what everyone else is doing and conform is actually a valid, well-working survival mechanism that only brokes down in exceptional circumstances or if taken too far. Most of the time, looking out your window and seeing what everyone else is wearing is a very good way of picking appropriate clothing for the current weather.
GPL, usually, for the reasons mentioned above.
Yes, I guess it really shows the importance of marketing in getting good ideas sold.
Readline is released under GPL and not LGPL for the exact reason that it would be available only to GPL'd programs. This makes being able to use readline an incentive to use GPL.
Why should Stallman care about how usefull some library is to people who license their programs under non-GPL-compatible licenses ? They are his competitors - one might even say enemies, considering his stated worldview. Why should he want to make it easier for his enemies to fight against him ?
It seems to me that the only people who have a problem with GPL are the people who want to make proprietary products that include GPL'd code; the very thing GPL was meant to prevent. The situation with readline, to me, seems like GPL working exactly as intended - giving software with GPL-compatible licenses an advantage over ones with noncompatible licenses, of being able to draw from other GPL'd programs and libraries.
Really ? What words has he redefined, exactly speaking ? What were their old and what are their new meanings ?
People usually argue against opinions and worldviews that conflict with theirs, especially if they are actively trying to promote theirs. One might even say that it is impossible to promote one worldview without arguing against those it conflicts with.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Not sure if you're really the troll you're currently modded at, but I'll take Stallman's side on the airport thing. People need to stand up for their rights, even at the inconvenience of others or we lose the rights. While I would not have wanted to be behind him in the security line, I tend to agree with his actions.
If he's a pompous windbag, he's in good company in this, or any other industry.