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.
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.
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.
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? [sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
How does the trademark stop you from modifying and distributing Linux freely? The only thing it stops you from is using the name "Linux" commercially in ways he doesn't like.
Big. Difference.
You can't make your own OSS spreadsheet program either and name it "Microsoft Excel".
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.
FYI: "Linux" was trademarked in 1996 by a lawyer who didn't have anything to do with Linux and then proceeded to ask for royalties from companies using it.
After a legal scuffle, Linus Torvalds was assigned the copyright in 1997 (So this is news?), and has licensed it since. The Linux Mark Institute has been around for years as well. (Can't recall exactly when they started, but archive.org dates their page to at least 2002).
"Linux" is a term with commercial potential. If Linus didn't own the trademark, someone else would (and did). And they would hardly charge any less.
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.
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
GNU as a trademark for computer software has been registered by the FSF for a number of years.
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 agree with the sentiment but you're not 100% correct. If you call your distro "Aussie Linux" and you sell it you're using it as a trademark. Trademarks cover both business names and product names (and logos).
How we know is more important than what we know.
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_
Seems appropriate.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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.."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"Linux claims Stallman doesn't matter"
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.