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.'"
Especially since those companies should be using the name GNU/Linux.
Richard Stallman? Pfh. What we all want to know is what Simon Cowell thinks!
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
The end of the article has this classic quote from Stallman:
"Most of the time, when people call something 'Linux', it's the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Maybe this policy will encourage people to call it GNU,"
Which he follows up with:
"I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."
My, how generous!
Sheeesh, is a little professionality* too much to ask for? I guess perhaps they should recode their webpage. Although of course they have the advertisements working perfectly.
* Yes, I'm aware this isn't an actual word.
"What names you're allowed to call a program is a side issue."
Linux is now "Fluffy Marshmellow Prophylactic" I'm certain that'll do wonders for Linux's continued growth.
If Linux were to fall out of trademark protection, there would be nothing to prevent unauthorised, shady and unscrupulous individuals and organisations from using the term for cheap knock-offs, cashing in on the name or other products which harm the reputation of Linux, and by association, ourselves.
So Linux is open for modification and distribution..... as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark? [sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
I guess with Linux's userbase (both corporate and private) continuing to grow, Linus (or at least a lawyer working on his behalf) feels that perhaps they need to begin regulating Linux a bit more closely. Perhaps they will slowly begin to make it not-quite-so-open as well.
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
Don't worry, Stallman 2.0 is being released in September.
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
"So Linux is open for modification and distribution..... as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark?"
Nope, Linux is still absolutely open for modification and distribution. As long as you follow the GPL you can do everything you want with it.
The only thing you can't do without getting a license is to use the name Linux for your bussiness. How some people can think that this is a bad thing is beyond me.
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.
RMS claiming that "what you call it doesn't matter" is just so ironic.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Free Software / OSS should be a licensing model, not a philosophy. As a licensing model it has clear advantages and disadvantages over other licensing models.
As a philosophy it is fraught with problems, the most significant problem being the utter destruction of much of the financial incentives that exist today for people to sit down and build software. It is hypocritical to enjoy the fruits of someone's capitalist labor and then attempt to take those fruits (a form of looting) and claim some philosophical justification.
Amazing magic tricks
Linus claims that Stallman doesn't matter.
GNU as a trademark for computer software has been registered by the FSF for a number of years.
Imagine how many witty acronyms involing "LUG" wouldn't make sense if we changed them all to "GLUG". My personal favourite witty acronym for a Linux User Group is HUMBUG: the Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group. Notice how they delecately try to include everyone? Theoretically you could go to a HUMBUG meeting with your Windows machine and not get snubbed, as long as you had SFU installed. Oh, and Apple geeks, they've invaded the place since OSX became the norm.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So Linux is open for modification and distribution.....
Yup, that has never changed.
as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark?
Yup, that hasn't changed, either. Linux (the kernal) is free for modification and redistribution. Use of the name Linux(R) is subject to trademark. In part to prevent say SUN, from marketing Solar Linux, which is really just Solaris with linux compatability.
[sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
Yup, it is. Do what you like, just don't besmirtch the name. Thats just horribly closed. What would Stallman say if someone made a piece of software called GNU, but it was completly proprietary? What if some hardware company makes a software modem that only works with Windows, and calls it "the Linux modem"?
I guess with Linux's userbase (both corporate and private) continuing to grow, Linus (or at least a lawyer working on his behalf) feels that perhaps they need to begin regulating Linux a bit more closely.
The name, yeah.
Perhaps they will slowly begin to make it not-quite-so-open as well.
No less open than it's ever been.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I feel he's right.
Linux may be trademarked, but it has never been enforced. Tons and tons fo people use "Linux" without any kind of permission from the trademark holder.
It was my understanding that the only reason this trademark existed is because it was recovered from some jerk who actually trademarked "Linux" as an operating system for his own nonexistant product name then tried to extort everyone.....
Linux fracas not the main game: RMS
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_
This is a serious question. If commercial entities are no longer allowed to use "linux"* designation, how do they let someone know what they are using. As far as I know even the distros that use original names still describe themselves as a "linux based" operating system. You can't call it "RedHat" based either or "Mandrake" based.....
Also, how does someone get a trademark on a term that has been in general use for a decade without previous trademark protection? My understanding is that this trademark would never have been granted in the US because of the lack of enforcement. There is a good reason that unprotected trademarks cannot get protection, it's becaue you end up in this type of ridiculious situation where they can now go after everyone who has been using it openly for years without so much as a peep. There is little difference between this and the submarine patents that have irked the computing community for many years. They should have used another new and unique word or combination to trademark ( "Linux certified"? ) rather than linux.
Oh, and while I'm at this rant... In the past the community decided what was acceptable for the linux name. Although they may not have had much legal "teeth" the community would quickly respond to people who misused the name or the license. Now we have one entity that is claiming all future protection for the name, it's bullshit. We now have another corporate entity that is claiming providice over our work, work that we gave openly to the community. It is wrong and I will not abide by it.
*Approved use only, what about non-approved use.
From TFA:
You know, I wouldn't have a problem with RMS trying to get "GNU" in there if he didn't want to put it on the front of the name. The way he wants it, the name sounds like "GNU Linux", so it sounds like a product of the FSF ("GNU Emacs", etc.)
Whenever it comes to that naming issue, I prefer Linux/GNU instead. As RMS states on the GNU site, "the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel" and "Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit." So Linux/GNU should be just as good as GNU/Linux.
Has anyone pointed out that FSF holds the trademark to GNU ?
Seems appropriate.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Damnit, didn't notice the typo in the first paragraph. Should read, "Linus moves to protect his big fat asset" of course.
Trademarks have to be defended. Say in 10 years, Linux is more insanely popular than it is now and Microsoft's marketshare is declining. If the trademark isn't defended. What do you think MS is going to do? They're going to release something very broken and call it Linux. While not destroying anything we've done, it would certainly set back further growth.
Linus wants to protect the name so someone can't pull a bait and switch. He's a smart guy, and I don't think he has any evil intentions.
Besides you seem to think that you can't take Linux and name it whatever you want. Which isn't true, you can certainly do that under the GPL. What you're not allowed to do is use the same name for your own fork or for a completely different product.
RMS is blowing smoke as usual. It may not matter to him, but he didn't create it. RMS has done a lot of good but he's almost completely lost all his credibility with this stupid name thing. Drop it already (if it isn't already too late).
The Anti-Blog
...and Stallman is Wrong: names DO matter.
The problem with Linus's attitude is that once you start making it harder for companies to use the kernel's official name as the product name, people will start thinking about creating their own names, dilluting perception about Linux, on the long run.
Even worse: what if a big company like IBM starts to promote their own trademarked name to sell their line of Open Source Server Operating Systems? That won't stop anyone from using other distributions but it will sure give a lot of marketing advantage to whoever gets directly associated with (ex-)Linux.
I think Linus is (indirectly) giving a chance for someone else owning the new widespread name related to the OSS Operating System containing the Kernel, the GNU Tools, the KDE/GNOME GUIs and all other stuff. I mean, it's just a matter of spending a lot of marketing money.
It's not like Mozilla's name has faded away and everyone now only hears (and knows) about Firefox, right? Err...
BTW: names are so important that even RMS is always ranting about them. The whole GNU/Linux discussion is just a big proof that RMS does give a big shit about names.
Sir! The breathtaking splendour of your Troll, the mastery of its inception, the subtlety of its exectution, shall be remembered forever in the anals of Slashdot hostory.
May the Maths Be with you!
Lots of people who develop software don't know much of anything about copyright or licencing issues. Plenty of them pick GPL because they have the impression that open souce means GPL. Everyone else uses it, it must be good, right? Rarely do developers really stop and consider what a license does for their software, and what the best license would be. Certainly this is due in part to RMS constantly pushing GNU everything at people.
The problem some people have with the GPL is that lots of things that really don't need to be GPL'd are, and are less useful as a result. For example, why is readline GPL? This means people making software with GPL incompatable licenses (even if they are open source) cannot use it. Is it really a justifiable concern that someone might use readline to make a commercial, non-free version of readline? There's no incentive to do that, and even if someone did, the open source version would still be there and just as good. So if readline were licensed under a more free license like a BSD or MIT or ISC license, or even the LGPL it would be a more useful piece of software for more people.
However, that isn't often why people complain about RMS. RMS is an obnoxious, loud-mouthed jerk, who thinks he can re-define the english language to suit his agenda, and is constantly trashing other people's efforts just because they don't share his particular views. This is why so many people dislike RMS.
If you think that Linus Torvalds is a reasonable person, and won't ask for anything unreasonable, then what about his heirs? What if Microsoft decides to buy the Linux trademark from him for a billion dollars? (He's a sane individual and would take the money.)
It is better for the name Linux to be free for everybody to use than for it to be centrally controlled.
If we can have patents for software lets have patents for food recipes!
This is really no different from trespassing. The mother has invited a new person to develop and live inside her for 9 months. If she suddenly decides to change her mind, she must allow that person a reasonable chance to leave her property. If you invite someone onto your land and later decide you don't want them there, you can't just take a shotgun to them...
If the state should allow abortion, they should allow murder of trespassers, even those who have been invited onto the land.
Luke-Jr
Humans have eternal souls. Animals do not. Yes, a big difference.
Luke-Jr
It is interesting to see the various things that get held by a part of the Linux community as Bad about Java end up being Good about Linux... interesting indeed...
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
Ummm, IIRC this is a kind of follow on from a few weeks back. However, back then the general consensus was that Jeremy Malcolm was a money grabbing, scientologist nutter. Why has everyone started taking this seriously now that RMS has weighed into it. I _still_ havent heard anything even paraphrased as coming from Linus himself ...
Anyone can still use the term "Linux" to describe a software, OS or box, as long as it is actually a Linux system.
I suspect that to say "Linus is going after these companies" is not correct both in legal terms and social terms. It is more like politely asking them to acknowledge that they won't be going to trademark "Linux" themselves.
As you rant about how "Linux" is not enforced, well there you have it, Linus is only sending letters to these companies to be able to claim that he has done steps to enforce it.
RMS is correct in saying that the trademark does not matter, simply because these companies can still use the term "Linux" under fair use.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Linux is a kernel, right?
;-)
When did Linux become the operating system?
I must have missed something, or was it just mass media brain washing that has caught on? But last time I looked, when I installed something like SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian, it was an operating system built on open source tools, which compirsed of the linux "kernel", some variant of the unix file system, a whole suit of gnu replacements for unix commands, and a range of open source packages from folk like Apache and such?
If we were to talk about perhaps Solaris, then indeed, we are talking about the Solaris kernel, the Solaris operating system tools which were all written from scratch, alebit with access to the source from BSD and SYS V variants, and agian a unix file system and some packages from folk like Apache and such, but in this case it's a complete solution from Sun and it's called Solaris.
The same can be said surely for the likes of OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, where they are complete systems, built around kernels, from scratch, although in each case they too lean heavity on the GNU replacements for Unix commands and tools.
Windows for example once refered to itself as Windows NT, where the NT part was essentially the kernel, designed and built by some smart folk who had a hand in the likes of OS/2 and VMS kernels and operating systems if I recall corrently, but it was clear that Windows was the GUI and NT was the underlying kernel.
Mac OS X even now is pretty open about the split between it's Mach kernel, Darwin core, and BSD / NeXT Step tools, but we don't call Mac OS X "Mach" do we - nope, it's OS X, or if you're like me and you favour what uname -a tells you, it's Darwin
I think Stallman summed it up pretty well when he ended the piece with:
quote:
Stallman thinks the issue of naming the product is not so clear cut. "Most of the time, when people call something 'Linux', it's the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Maybe this policy will encourage people to call it GNU," Stallman told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."
Now I do agree that GNU/Linux is perhaps a mouthfull, but on the other hand, I think it's particularly lame to refer to the GNU/Linux operating system as just Linux, so perhaps it's time for a new name, label, whatever, for whatever it is many of us run.
It could be like the Musician formerly known as Prince, now known as some Egyptian hyrogliph - we could have the operating system formerly known as Linux, now known as #$%^&#!?
It might actually be worth many of you taking time to read Stallman's FAQ on GNU/Linux over at:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
It does go a long way to answering and clearing up much of what is in this horribly messy series of threads and sub threads, basically emotive and guess work, rather than fact.
For example, from that URL:
quote:
Why do you call it GNU/Linux and not Linux?
Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel, and we developed a larger part of the resulting system than any other project. In fairness, we ought to get equal mention.
quote:
Why is the name important?
Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom. People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and assign to those developers a role in the history of our community which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to those developers' views.
Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals.
quote:
--- Dez Blanchfield http://WebSearch.COM.AU "Will work for bandwidth.."
I am not sure if quite as clear cut as that, what about forced entry (rape), What about if the visitor invited into the property damaged the health of the mother - even risked the life of the mother ...
What about if it 'only' going to cause mental health problem to the landlord ?
But if is a nice analogy.
The quote from the article is:
'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.'
On first reading this, I got the idea that the whole thing was a quote from RMS, since it was from an interview with him.
However, the second sentence (after the ellipsis) is a quote from the article, not from RMS.
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.
RMS thinks that certain libraries (such as readline) should be GPL so that developers who want to use the libraries are forced to GPL their software. He believes that if there are enough good GPL libraries, it will be an incentive for developers to write GPL software (so they can use those libraries). Actually, in the specific case of readline, it's probably because readline was extracted from bash (which is GPL) and it was easier to release it under the same license than to track down all the original authors (copyright holders) and get their permission to use a different license.
chown -R us ~you/base
In related news, I have just patented the letter "e".
Everybody in the world now owes me about $3,000,000 a piece (except for mathematicians, who owe more).
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Actually, people were using GNU tools long before Linux came around. They were just using them on proprietary platforms.
Without a readily available source of free system software, Linux would have been taking a dive into an empty pool. A kernel is worthless without a system around it, and vice versa. However, the supply of free system software is and was much more limited than the supply of kernels -- and it's easier to install GNU on your SunOS system than Linux on that same system.
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.
What makes you say that GNU Compiler Collection (gcc) and GNU C Library (glibc), both maintained by FSF, are less critical to a free operating system than Linux, maintained by Linus Torvalds? A GNU system could run on a *BSD kernel for all I care.
"GLUG"? Be careful with that one, A. Solzhenitsyn may have a problem with that. Besides, do you really want to associate GNU/Linux system with the Soviet style concentration camp system?
You can't handle the truth.
This wasn't a press release or anything. The Sydney Morning Herald asked RMS for an interview, and he gave it. They asked him some questions, and he answered them. Then SMH published a news article about it, obviously losing some of the context, but terribly so. Then ZDNet copied a few quotes from that news article and created a totally misleading title, probably made up a sensationalistic fact out of thin air ("Stallman's words put him at odds with some members of the free software movement"), and wrote an article which took the quote even more out of context. Then Slashdot picked up the story, repeated the misleading title, and stuck in the quote without any context whatsoever. Suddenly, RMS is a whining brat for giving an interview.
Freedom of software is a philosophy, and as such it's not exactly defined, nor legally significant. On the other hand, GPL exists as a legally binding license that implements the philosophy as much as possible. When you use the GPL, there's no need to dispute it philosophically, since you can simply refer to the actual contents of the agreement.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Because 100% of the C/C++ programs are built with gcc, including the MIT/KDE software. People are forgetting that the FSF not only contributed the standard utilities and libraries, but ALSO gcc.
Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
The most common ones then came from either SCO or ATT.
The widespread adoption of Linux would've been slowed significantly if people had to fork over $500 for a development kit, and probably another $200-500 for a commercial OS, just so they could run Linux.
This is why we're indebted to the FSF for their efforts. And they are right to insist upon credit for themselves. Without the FSF, Linux wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is today. Giving the FSF due recognition seems quite appropriate; and frankly, I just don't see people giving the FSF the respect it deserves (witness your comments), let alone due credit.
And don't forget that it was RMS himself who encouraged Linus to adopt the GPL for his kernel. Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Distros like Red Hat have enough of a name brand that they do not need to include Linux in their names. This would only seem to effect smaller distros where you wouldn't know what they were until actually looking into what they were.
Please don't make me correct you a second time.
-- GNU/RMS
That's your claim. Other faiths hold that everything has what could be termed a soul.
Personally, I think the "we have souls and they don't" argument sounds like a means of justifying to ones self why it is okay to kill one thing but not another.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Once upon a time, somebody named Richard Stallman got pissed off because he needed to see the source code to a program so he could fix it, and the code author told him he was restricted by an NDA.
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html
He was so miffed at this that he went off and founded GNU (Gnu's Not Unix), meant to be a free version of Unix.
http://www.gnu.org/
"dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, understanding, and modification of computer programs." But there was (and still is) one problem with the GNU operating system...it didn't have the kernel (the part of the OS that talks to the hardware at the lowest level), which project was known as the HURD
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
which is STILL "not ready for production use, as there are still many bugs and missing features."
Enter Linus Torvalds, who, unaware of the GNU project, undertook to write his *own* kernel upon which he would then put an operating system that was to be, you guessed it, a free version of Unix. Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman got adjascent seats on an airplane with their luggage mixed up or something; however they met, they met, and with Torvalds' kernel and Stallman's operating system it was indeed the birth of the blues.
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.
Who would have thought (or used a search engine to check) that GNU.org has an essay about this: What's in a name?
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
That's why I call my peaches/ketshup/garlic/broccoli mixture "beef stroganoff".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Just wondering, when Linus made Linux, what was Minix using? Was it GNU? Should we call it GNU/Minix? OK, the last question was rhetorical, but the first two were real.
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.
Stallman is consistent in saying that names are important.
What he said in this article is that "What names you're allowed to call a program is a side issue" (emphasis mine)
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
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.
"Linux claims Stallman doesn't matter"
Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
gcc was *not* the only free compiler for x86. All that gcc brought to the table was support for non-x86 architectures. Linux's support for non-x86 may have been important for business adoption but for the overwhelming majority of hobbyists and unix enthusiasts who put Linux on the map x86-only would have been just fine.
Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
That is largely irrelevant. If Linux did not fill the void of inexpensive/free desktop unix something else would have. FreeBSD for example. FSF politics may have suffered without Linux, but not *nix users or computing in general.
Oh come on man. Please don't criticize if you don't know what you're talking about. Just because they modded you Informative rather than Flamebait (signifies how clueless the mods are), I'll address the points you make:
``and here comes Stallman with his, "Hey, news people, the issue isn't the Linux trademark! It's that it's not called GNU to give me credit!"''
That's not what he said at all. Quoth RMS:
"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."
So he said that naming doesn't matter, what matters is that you can freely modify and redistribute the software.
As for the GNU/ prefix, it's true that in a typical Linux distribution, far more of the code comes from GNU than comes from Linux. Your arrogance and ignorance w.r.t. the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux makes me think that maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the GNU project were more loudly credited for their work.
``The fact is, GNU was going nowhere without Linus' kernel.''
Give me a break. People were using GNU utilities on their proprietary Unixen all the time. If you look at a contemporary proprietary Unix system, you will probably find GNU software there. Often, the GNU utilities are more usable than the vendor supplied ones; if the vendor even supplies them. If you look at a BSD system, they invariably use the GNU C compiler. And what utilities do you think are used to build the Linux kernel?
``HURD (the intended GNU OS) is still a pipe dream because Stallman couldn't write a kernel if you paid him.''
Come on man. Stallman was one of two people working at Lisp Machines Inc before he started GNU. He and the other guy (what was his name again?) developed a system that was competitive with the one developed by the much larger Symbolics. Do you _really_ think RMS doesn't know how to write a kernel?
The HURD was never successful, because (contrary to the rest of GNU) it incorporated too many revolutionary ideas. It had to be better that the monolithic kernels found in Unix. Sadly, microkernels were (and are still) badly understood, which is why HURD development stalled. Then along came Linux and the free BSDs, and now people simply don't see a point in developing HURD anymore.
Interestingly, Linux allows most drivers to be built as modules, which brings it closer to the microkernel model that any other Unix kernel has been. With the sheer amount of gadgets, filesystems, etc. that are supported, modularity is almost a necessity. Could it be that the world is converging toward the model that HURD tried to push from the beginning?
``The facts are, that Linux was a kernel project without the rest of the OS, and GNU was....an incomplete OS. The two coming together didn't put one over another.''
Yes. So why are you saying that "GNU was going nowhere without Linux"? Sounds like you're putting one over another, doesn't it?
``A common statement is that "Linux is just the kernel" but that's not quite true. It's also a "brand name" that companies slap on their products''
You're spot on about the brand name, but it really is true that Linux is just a kernel in a technical sense. Linux needed GNU to be competitive with the free BSDs, which provide both a kernel and a userland. That's what the statement "Linux is just a kernel" really means.
``['Linux' is] also a shorthand term used by users of GNU/Linux (who do know there's plenty of GNU in there).''
Seriously, no. Do you know how many people have equated Linux with Red Hat? Do you really think that leaves a realistic chance that these people will realize the contribution the GNU project has made?
Too many people think that glibc, GNU make, GNU C, GNU emacs, etc. etc. etc. were developed for Linux, or, worse, these are the utilities that "Linux" supplies. RMS is whining about this issue, because it hurts him. How would you like it if
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Not demanding it, which is what statements like this appear to be.
I find that a lot of the time where people are saying 'Linux' they mean to say (or at least should be saying) 'Open Source'. After all, Linux (as in the kernel itself) really is a small part of the whole system, and as and end user I'm not going to care whether my Gnome desktop, Firefox browser and OpenOffice.org productivity suite are running on a Linux, BSD or even OpenSolaris kernel!
I wonder about the utility of trademarking the term Linux - in reality rejecting a license application is going to be difficult at best, and to do so will go against the spirit of open source in general. My use of the term Linux is not necessarily going to appeal to everyone, and vice versa, but that shouldn't result in an application being denied; consider SpamLinux, PornSurfingLinux, BibleBashingLinux, etc.
lets have patents for food recipes!
Here we go: 6,863,908 -- Universal sauce base.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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.
It is a sign of disrespect to give someone's work a name other than that which the author gave it. Perhaps some don't care to ask you to call their work by the name they gave it, but this is not a generally recommendable stance. Giving credit where credit is due should be routine in any discussion of anything. Such behavior would lead to far fewer misunderstandings.
Digital Citizen
All the +4 and +5 scored posts are all about GNU/Linux being the one true name but none refuting this claim have been modded up. I sense bias again?
I guess the previous poster is right and we should call Linux, KLinux because without KDE Linux would be a totally different operating system from the user's view. It makes up most of any modern Linux distribution. Right?
I dont understand the logic?
If 22% of the system is licensed under a GNU license but most is not offically part of "gnu" then is it really a 100% pure GNU system?
The gnu license requires all of the source code to be gnu before anything is called gnu. To me this means unless its purely gnu/linux than its Linux.
BSD is doing fine without gnu with the exception of the gcc of course. There have been free c/c++ compilers in the past but most of them have died out due to gcc's popularity.
But Linux would not have existed without GNU right? Yes I think it would
BSD and yes Linux could have easily existed without gnu. Posix is still huge and just as functional and other FOSS c compilers would have gained popularity without gnu which Linux would have used.
GNU is not the reason Linux existed since free software has been around since the 1970's. Most of it BSD and Posix. This is from a former FreeBSD user so I look at gnu a little bit differently.
BSD has been opensourced for a long time before GNU.
http://saveie6.com/
It's one thing to consider code open, and I'm all for it. However, referring to things by their proper name, and trademarks, is important.
Linux refers to a whole set of work, and community, that creates good software that's open for anyone to use, modify and redistribute. For a company to use the name Linux without acknowledging that is searching for trouble: that's why Linus put Linux under trademark protection.
A trademark protection means that the name of the product (in this case Linux) will not become a word referring to a category of products, but to that specific product (think about "scotch tape", or "kleenex").
If those companies got those letters, it was because they were taking on the name Linux without properly attributing the credit where it was due: to opensource developers.
If someone's unhappy about that, go live in a totally communist country and code from there and get only the censored news so you stay happy.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Don't you mean GNU/Stallman? ;-)
People growing up on Linux today see gnu everywhere and assume without gnu Linux would not be.
Truth be told gnu accounts for around 22% of a total Linux distribution according to another poster. IS taht 22% gnu or gnu licensed software not associated with gnu?
Actually KDE makes up the vast majority of source code in a modern distro. That means we should call it KLinux.
Its silly.
Also posix has been around for ages and alot of it is installed on many linux distro's in addition to gnu.
Posix is used on BSD and Linux could easily exist without gnu. GNu is only used because its more feature filled complete. It does not mean Linux and gnu are one. There are even c/C++ compilers taht are opensource besides gcc that could be used.
So why should we credit RMS? All he has done was to create another free license and create clones of many already free posix unix userland apps.
Opensource software has existed for BSD and MIT for decades before gnu was a twinkle in RMS's eye.
http://saveie6.com/
Linux would have used the posix userland apps like the BSD's use and probably one of the popular non-gnu c/c++ compilers.
Linux was created because Linus wanted a unix for himself and he wanted to do OS programing. Not to fullfill RMS's fantasy about a GNU/OS utopia.
Linux never needed gnu really. It was just there.
http://saveie6.com/
... at least to some degree..
The freedom to run and modify software is more important than what you call it, according to the GNU founder
What you call it isn't important, but hinting that we should call it GNU instead?Maybe this policy will encourage people to call it GNU," Stallman told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."
Maybe I am the only one, but to me it looks like he grabbed an opportunity to promote GNU or second on the list: GNU/Linux as the propper name for the system's normally called Linux today. The latter, to give a share of the credit to the kernel developers.. how touching.
If it's "just" a name, why not just leave it with Linux? How does it matter? Does a name absolutely have to be a correct representation of lines of codes etc.? Who hasn't read unix/linux books with the circle representation of the system with the kernel in the center. What if I think kernel as the core a more important naming model, meaning since the kernel is the core of the system, the core should be the important naming factor. It's about the point of view also, just because RMS's point of view which suggest GNU doesen't mean it's absolute and definitive, and I bet there are many other equally acceptable suggestions and alternatives.
Certainly, if you look it from a marketing standpoint, the "Linux" term has a proven itself as a winner, why would you want to make changes to a formula that obviously works? In respect to "GNU", It's painfull to do a switch on well established names, and you should have a very good reason to do so.
Apparently Stallman only says GNU Linux. I think Leo Laporte invited him to be on TWiT podcast. He insisted that everyone only say GNU/Linux or he wouldn't come. I believe after that requirement, the TWiT crew cancelled their invitation.
Stallman also made of fool of himself on Leo's old show, "The Screen Savers" on TechTV before it was raped by G4. Apparently, Stallman forced everyone to say GNU/Linux, so Leo got his revenge by having Stallman sing the Free Software Foundation ditty. Although Stallman didn't see the humor in it, the viewers sure did.
Of course, the SMH might also have just ripped off of an RMS press release, but then ZDNet is TWICE removed from the source, so why not just post the damn SMH link? It's non-reg? And it's a hell of a lot more independent media than ZDNet, which isn't really a news source, fellas. Thanks.
Oh, and the link: http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/08/25/112456296535 8.html
True, there were and are plenty of Unix systems using GNU utilities. And how many were virtually all GNU except for the kernel? How many were the entire package, the entire "almost an OS", but with their own kernel? I wasn't talking about GNU the organization or GNU the "loose group of utilities that this or that Unix might incorporate piecemeal." I was talking about GNU being built around as a total package to create an OS. That was going nowhere without the Linux kernel.
And as has been pointed out elsewhere, Linux could just as easily have been completed as an OS using posix components as GNU components. GNU wasn't strictly necessary, Linus would have gotten his own Unix-clone regardless. It was simply fortunate that GNU was avaliable and needed a kernel. The Linux kernel may be built today with GNU utilities, but they aren't necessary to do so. Something to remember.
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).
Popular non-GNU C/C++ compilers? Even the BSDs use GCC. It's the only "popular" free C compiler out there.
The BSD userland is pretty closely tied to the BSD operating system as a whole. It would have been more effort to use them than to use GNU, which came in handy chunks.
My point remains: what GNU provides is much more valuable than what Linux provides. Linux was necessary to complete a free GNU system, but you could still replace almost everything in an existing proprietary Unix system with GNU software. The same is not true of Linux.
Seriously. The options for functional free userland software today are GNU, BSD, and busybox, pretty much. Only the former both existed and was easily usable for use with Linux at the time.
GCC was and is pretty much the only free C compiler. The Linux kernel was written for GCC -- it uses a number of GNU extensions to C.
Between the userland and what GCC provides you need the C library. Again, you have BSD, GNU, and (today) a few others.
GNU was not the only option at the time for Linux, but it was the best. Whether Linus intended to further the FSF philosophy is irrelevant.
It would have to be GNU/Linux® in order to comply with the trademark requirements.
It says so quite clearly here:
http://www.linuxmark.org/attribution.html
And page or post mentioning it should have the following attribution somewhere:
"Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries."
Obviously anyone using the word Linux without the ® as specified by the web page is using it incorrectly.
Deleted
I think this is exactly what Linus is trying to avoid. By enforcing his trademark he can keep things (a little) cleaner. Nobody will make a perfect decision as to who can use a name, but the owner of that trademark gets the luxury of that decision.
Now stop thinking about inabling for a minute. Even a new linux distribution, or whatever we will be calling them in the future... will be able to reference the linux name as long as it is in a fashion that doesn't brand the product as linux. Think about what dell does with their PC's. They dont call them Intel Inspiron's, or try to market the Celeron 3500 galaxy edition, they simply put put the IO sticker on the front.
The same thing can be done with linux, and it might actually boost some originality of new products. Taking away the right to use linux as a brand name forces companies to be more original, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Sorry, but lawyers only do what you tell them to do. I learned this first hand from a very sticky contract language dispute. A lawyer will more or less, ask you what you want to do, and then advise you to the best of their abilities how to do it.
---- I have nothing more to add.
Stallman is just pissed that people feel the Linux name is worth misusing to the point that Linus feels he has to protect it while the GNU name doesn't have enough perceived value to misuse.
That's not to say the GNU project has no value.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Come now, that's a bit harsh.
No one is so irredeemably sinful as to deserve to use MS Windows.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
What is so hostile about:
(1) correcting someone's erroneous statement that gcc was the only free compiler available for x86? It was not.
(2) pointing out that gcc's uniqueness was not in being free but in targetting multiple architectures? Targetting multiple architectures is not a negative.
"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?"
It is quite humorous that you respond to my statement regarding false attribution with more false attribution. Thank you for the laugh. To clue you in: Roman politicians took the credit for non-Roman inventions. Shall we give Microsoft credit for the GUI although PARC and other researches invented it, Apple introduced it to the public, but Microsoft delivered it to the masses. The logic of your Roman quote would give MS the credit.
I have read some older usenet posts from the 1990's about using different c/c++ compilers when gcc was not as powerfull as it is now. They were free and if you load SuSE with everything installed you will see several different c/c++ compilers.
/etc that wont work right without it.
My guess is they faded away after gcc improved but certainly people compilied early BSD's under alternative compilers.
Posix is a open ansi stamped standard with free source code. Its true different vendors had different versions of "ls" and "make" but they were based off the opensource standard. The BSD versions are not totally tied into their own systems but I can see posix specific scripts in
Infact my old "Unix Power Tools" book had a cdrom with sourcecode for posix and mentioned that in the early 1990's that the gnu tools were inferior to the posix ones. Linus surprising chose the lesser (at the time) quality versions. Perhaps he wanted portability with the gnu tools on the commerical unixies at his university? Who knows?
I am not bashing gnu. I am just saying GNU is not the only reason for free software and Linux uses it but does not need it.
The problem I have is I feel RMS is trying to steal the sucess of Linux and claim it on his own. That is quite an ego trip. GNU is nice but again other free alternatives would have existed and do exist. Linux is what ever Linus himself calls it since its his OS.
http://saveie6.com/
Forget the tool-chain for a moment. The real benefit is the GPL. It protected the kernel and toolchain so that improvements are shared in a developer community.
short, to the point: If I want to make a website called TheLinuxOpinion.net, and it turns out people posting to the site have the opinion that linux is (gasp) generally not as pleasant-looking as windows when it's actually being used, the great Linux Trademark could come down and crush us just for posting our opinions.
"But they wouldnt do that!"
but that is the exact reason this exists. Wanting to stop people from spreading "FUD" while "pretending" to be "Linux".
If the purpose of your trademark is to crush the dissenting views you like less than various other dissenting views, that's abuse of the trademark (I am not a lawyer and am not using these terms in any legal sense).
What brand identity are they trying to protect with the trademark? The identity of "Linux likes Linux"?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
You can imagine that if Linus et al doesn't push forward with trademarking "Linux" and then properly enforcing it, that another company might come in and trademark "Linux" and start imposing its own rules, etc.
Then of course there is the usual Company XY (or MS) might market a "Linux for Windows" product, that turns out it is utter crap, misleading or nothing of the sort, scenerio.
So, yeah, despite RMS's arguments and points, however valid, going ahead and trademarking "Linux" was the right thing to do. PERIOD. (and all that that entails...)
Part of the issue isn't so much as what you call "it", but what others call "Linux".
And yes there is a bit of a hypocrisy in RMS's position here, since his insistence on calling "it" GNU/Linux doesn't jibe with "it doesn't matter what you call it".
Trademarking is just another intrusion of the Real World(TM) on our ideals, unfortunate but necessary...
But GNU has been successful. It is part of the ever-growing installed base of Linux systems. GNU didn't need Linux any more than Linux needed GNU. But they were joined together, and it was successful -- and the FSF deserves a fair share of the credit.
By the way, BSD isn't "POSIX." It's mostly POSIX-compatible (as is GNU), but POSIX itself is based off SysV Unix (as opposed to the BSD-style Unices). BSD was the way it was before POSIX existed.
Fun fact: the name "POSIX" was proposed by none other than Richard M. Stallman.
I see. So, while my penis is inside a woman, she's part of my body. I can smack that bitch up!
I think your logic stinks.
I saw this go from +4 interesting to -1 Troll.
Stupid mods - this wasn't a troll, or flamebait, but I guess while it was at +4 it was seen by a fair few people.
Although there was no way to substantiate this, I would have preffered an 'OffTopic' than a Troll. tsk.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Since no more mods are looking at this story to spend their m0d po1ntz (in the mid range), then the only thing I can take from my comment is this sarcastic homage to my l33t trolling skillz.
Shame it wasn't a troll, because if it was, bingo.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
...why people continue to have any respect for this man.
a) He doesn't own the trademark, so I have no idea why his opinion/statement would be asked for regarding it. His statement certainly does not hold any legal weight.
b) As someone else pointed out, he is hypocritical here, and this isn't the first time. He has insisted earlier that people use the term "GNU/Linux", and yet here he says that what a program is called is a side issue.
The second point in particular demonstrates the validity of an opinion which I have held about RMS for some time now. Namely, that he isn't anywhere near as principled as he claims, but is fairly simply a narcissist whose only genuine interest is in maintaining popularity and feeling that he has a group of people who will listen to his decrees.
I don't argue that he was a great programmer, once...but he needs to stop making public statements, as all they do is continue to damage his credibility and erode the goodwill/respect/relevance that he earned with his programming achievements.
Yes, but is the "volume of code" standpoint a good one? You could argue that small pieces of code that are used very often and relied upon by by many other apps are more important.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's the world view which makes the OS called Linux, not GNU/Linux. It makes perfect sense for a corporation or home user. It's less so for a person who lives in a CLI and is using the tools routinely but most users aren't sysadmins. Of course, I do live in the sysadmin world but that doesn't mean that I don't see why it's normally called Linux.
Stallman left MIT and started the GNU project in 1984. The guys at Berkeley were already at 4.2BSD by then, so he certainly does not predate anybody else at all, nevermind by a wide margin. And there were plenty of other people creating and distributing open source code in the early 80s that didn't happen to make a foundation, or a big popularly re-used license or anything else to become "famous".
Also, the first version of the GPL and the first official version of the BSD license both came out in 1989, so there's no predating others in the licensing department either. Of course, an open source license is just a statement that you giving away your exclusive rights if people agree to your terms. Those were definately around long before 1989, its just that people wrote their own couple line statement instead of paying a lawyer to write several pages of legalese and naming the license and trying to get other people to use the license for their software.
I believe it was an average based on considering the then "big 7" distros. Look at the distro you're using and see if it isn't true.
Hell, let's rename *every* GNU software product to simply "GNU". A little extreme? Okay, so that the authors can a share of the credit (though it's really this wonderful licensing scheme and the FSF that has permitted these authors to distribute Free code), we can call it GNU/Software where "Software" is the name the author had chosen.
GNU products already have gnu in the name, e.g. the GNu Object Model Environment, Gnu Image Manipulation Program, Gnu Privacy Guard, Gnu LIBC, Gnu LIB, GNUnet... When they're written by the gnu it makes perfect sense for gnu to name them - who else would you suggest does it? When they're not, then call them what you want. But the point is that the "largest minority" of the code for "linux" distributions was written by the gnu, and is in products with gnu in the name.
I am trolling
He didn't say it wasn't an issue. He just said it was a side issue.
(that shows me for posting right after going jogging... damn shaky hands)
./'s moderation system. You aren't supposed to mod up what you agree with and mod down what you don't. This is not a democratic election of ideas!
Except you've just described what's wrong with how most people treat
You're supposed to mod up what contributes to a good discussion, and mod down what doesn't. Any favoratism shown toward ideas that reflect the "majority opinion" is rightly labeled as bias.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Daddy is the rapist, not Baby. I don't believe we have held children responsible for their parents' sins for quite some time...
Even if the visitor is unwillingly damaging the owner's health or property, they still have a right to be given a fair chance to leave. If it would kill the owner for them to leave, it's a tough issue for the owner-- since there is never really any circumstances one can be 100% sure of this.
Luke-Jr
A fetus is a person, and that is not only fact, but one that has been scientifically proven.
No, they never actually entered the property-- but does that give them any less a right to exit fairly?
Luke-Jr
I'm saying a country should base its laws on fact, including this one.
Luke-Jr
Other faiths are lies.
Luke-Jr
Your cat cannot possibly comprehend the idea of a spiritual soul at all, let alone an eternal one, since it does not have a spiritual soul itself. If it tells you that you don't, it's simply lying.
I highly doubt you're perfect as you claim to be...
Luke-Jr