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.
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.
Never trust journalism that seeks to promote conflict between parties. It is too easy to take words out of context, to ask people to make statements on subjects they would rather ignore, and to do what journalists are generally paid to do - fill the pages with controversy and "news".
Point 1: RMS is the genius behind the GPL, the FSF tools, and has dedicated his life to making Linux, however you call it, come true. Insulting RMS is a sign of ignorance, bad manners, or bad faith.
Point 2: Linux is a mark and a commodity technology. The goal of trademarking Linux and enforcing that mark through licensing is to protect the "brand" from those who seek to harm it. But that is a short-term logic, and it ignores the underlying fact: a commodity technology needs no name, no brand, because it does not compete on that basis. No-one ever trademarked "TCP/IP" (afaik) and it would have been both ridiculous and counter-productive to have tried.
So RMS is spot-on, even if he does not explain it quite the way I'd like to hear. The name you give Linux is only meaningful if you're one of the vendors supporting it today. It's what Linux is, and does, not its name, that guarantees its place as the commodity OS of the future.
My blog
His point is that 22% of the code in a typical "Linux" distribution is written by the GNU, more than (pulling a number out my ass) any 3 other "authors" (or organisations) put together, wheras less than 1% is Linux. If you want to call it GNU/MIT/KDE/..., go on, but if you're going to call it by a single thing, that should be GNU, not Linux.
I am trolling
You people don't give RMS and GNU enough credit. Without GNU, GNU/Linux is just a kernel. Worthless. I realize that if it wasn't for GNU, Linux would have found some other system tools or written their own, but the point is to give credit where it is deserved.
RMS shouldn't be blamed for encouraging people to say GNU/Linux. The system is just as much GNU as it is Linux.
Also:
GNU != RMS, as plenty of people seem to think. Wanting people to put GNU into the name of Linux is not trying to remember RMS. It's remembering GNU.
To you they may matter, but Stallman speaks for himself, not everybody, and, apparently, not you, ok?
To him the name doesn't matter, because he's not after being successful in the way you imply. He doesn't care what the companies use.
To Stallman only the existance of a free development platform matters, and that existance is practically guaranteed due to the GPL and GNU by now (Technically HURD isn't necessary anymore, because the Linux Kernel is GPL'ed). If everybody used it, that'd be a bonus, but the mere existance is the one-and-only goal.
Try to see him more as the philosopher he is, not caring about marketing and commercial success, but taking care his ideas (Specifically that it should always be possible to use a free development platform) continue to exist (And one website, hosted privately, practically could do that), no matter what.
Oh, and, everybody, please don't automacally assume I'm on Stallmans "side" here, I just don't like him being misunderstood. He's an idealist, which is not necessarily moronic.
I've always wondered, if you've got Acrobat on your system, would Stallman want you to call it Adobe/GNU/Linux?
:P
No, he would want you to remove it immediately and install a free PDF reader instead. Or, preferably, to stop using formats like PDF altogether in favour of something that's not so tied to a particular proprietary implementation.
That aside, the point is that the average "Linux" distribution does rely on a GNU foundation in a way that it doesn't rely on X, or Gnome, or KDE, or TeX, or any of the other major software packages that people like to cite when arguing against the GNU/prefix. You can run the Linux kernel without any of those, and a lot of people do. But it's pretty difficult to get a Linux kernel at all without using the GNU compiler collection, and it's pretty unusual to use Linux without the GNU userland.
Sure, you could try to compile the kernel with Intel's compiler instead, if you only want to run it on x86. And you could replace most or all of the GNU userland with the BSD equivalents, or with another alternative such as BusyBox. But firstly, most people don't; and secondly, RMS doesn't insist that such systems be called GNU/Linux anyway. The fact is that the Linux system, in its best-known configuration - the one configuration that RMS demands people refer to as GNU/Linux - is fundamentally reliant on the work of the many collaborators in the GNU project.
It's true that "GNU/Linux" is ugly, and it's true that hardly anyone uses that name, and it's even true that RMS appears to be obsessed with this minor issue well beyond the bounds of what's reasonable. But you can't deny that he has a valid point - even if, like most people, you choose to reject the conclusion he draws from it.
Why does giving credit where credit is due, or naming, or trademarking have anything to do with open source? If something is released under the GPL (as RMS would want it) then it's yours to do whatever you like with. Change the code. Fork it. The code is free (as in speech and beer).
So why call it anything? Do I call my Toyota a Ford/Toyota after the father of the production line? I mean, without the modern production line, where would Toyota be? We should give Henry Ford the credit, right?
So why does RMS care? Would he object to me changing the names of the variables in his GPL code? He has given me permission, under the terms of the license, to do with it what I please, so long as I release the code if I distribute binaries. Sure I can rename it. Just like I can with variables or methods in the code itself.
I can't argue that GNU's contribution is insignificant. But who cares what the name is? And prefixing things with GNU is just ridiculous. The point has been made - where do you draw the line? Am I running Mozilla/Adobe/Microsoft/Java/Darwin on my Mac at the moment? Maybe MacOSX is a better name for it, and is more easily marketable.
I think I've made my stand pretty clear on this one. Call Linux whatever you like. Part of something being GPL is that you can rename it if you so please. And please feel free (as in speech) to drop the GNU from GNU/Linux.
Linux has a part of Linus' name in it
Last I checked, there is no GNU in "Stallman", so yeah, he is fighting for everyone and not just himself. The whole idea of defending freedom is rarely about oneself, I don't see Stallman being oppressed, so yeah, he's doing it for other people.
And you might get some smug people dissing him out, but the bottom line is most developers, even when they have the choice of BSD-style mozilla-style, and whatever, STILL choose the GPL. I don't know why people have such a problem with this, people choose the GPL on their own Stallman doesn't force them to do it. It's their choice, and it's the most popular licence, why all this venom? Deal with it ffs. Every time Stallman is mentioned a flood of tears spills from BSD and other licence fanatics, fine, you chose yours, I don't mind BSD at all. But stop whinging about the GPL ok. People choose it, and IMO for good reason. I don't have some huge chip on my shoulder cause the BSD devs choose the BSD-style licences, but it seems some BSD and other (SUN) have a big cry everytime stallmans name is mentioned.
And yeah, I think it's reasonable to call it GNU, it is the GNU NOT UNIX system. It isn't Unix, and most of it is licenced under the GPL. And the vast majority of it wasn't coded by a one Linus T., the vast majority of it was coded by people who *chose* to licence under the GPL. So hey, why not call it GNU?
God there are some snarky people around, I wish they would all go to BSD-land and just STOP COMPLAINING. It happens EVERY time, and it's boring.
I've got a pretty simple solution, licence your stuff under the licence you think is best and STFU about personal attacks on other people ok?
RMS' point was that it doesn't matter what it's called because the code's still there and improving. Microsoft could grab a copy, release it with source and call it Microsoft Rainbow. I could grab a copy and call it the Shieldwolf System. That's the strength of all that GPL software, and the quality of all the software is the source of the GPL's strength. He probably doesn't like seeing resources diverted to defending a trademark when they could be, in his opinion, better used in some other way. Which is a fair enough point of view.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
So what you're saying is Stallman's package is too small . . . ?
We don't include "Ford" in Toyota because there are no Ford components in Toyota's cars.
So; my Lotus, which has a Toyota engine, Toyota gearbox, Toyota running gear, and a Lotus-modified Toyota enigine control system, then logically be called a Lotus/Toyota
Makes sense.... after all a car without an engine wouldn' t do much, would it?
So.... why my isn't my car called a Lotus/Toyota Elise, but instead is just called a Lotus Elise?
Oh, I know why
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName