Slashdot Mirror
1 in 9 Companies Sign Linux Trademark Letter
An anonymous reader writes "More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations which received a letter asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so. Jeremy Malcolm, the lawyer who's leading the charge on behalf of Linux Mark Institute, described the response and favorable, saying: "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names. He added that one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain."
AFAIK you can't just go out and call your product FreeBSD coffee, or whatever. The FreeBSD foundation owns the trademark.
I know for a fact that the NetBSD foundation has been clamping down on people using the NetBSD name in their products without authorisation.
I don't see how Linus's actions are any different from this.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I'm not saying that the Linux Mark Institute is doing this
Good, because they aren't. The sublicense agreement only gives LMI the right to terminate if the sublicensee starts using the mark with unauthorized goods/services (something completely unrelated to Linux), or if they violate the agreement in another way.
The agreement doesn't give LMI the right to terminate just because the sublicensee smeared Linux's name. LMI cannot hold the company to any standards, codes of conduct, etc.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
For an understanding of why Linus has to do this, read this article at the Motley Fool (registration might be required)
e maker000501.htm
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rul
Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.
The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.
Agreed on both counts. But if Linux becomes a popular OS, then it will attract some less fluffy personalities who only see it as a quick way to make a buck. If this idealistic group has no mechanism for ejecting/controlling wayward, sleazy elements, then the group's reputation will quickly sink to that of its worst members.
Moreover, if Linux supporters feel that their efforts are only going toward lining the pockets of a few "Linux" companies, then they will withdraw their support, labors, and love. Controlling the marque is a way to control the integrity of the brand and of the movement.
Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.
Not a high degree of control, but some control, yes.
Either Linux Mark Institute believes in the ideal, in which case truth, justice and the American way will bring about a rosy future for Linux, or it doesn't, in which case it needs to close the source. There is no third way.
Perhaps your post was simply sarcasm. If so, I apologize for taking it seriously. I only think that if Linux wants to be taken seriously, then Linux/Linus/LMI/whoever needs to take the Linux name seriously.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Trademarks need to be defended. Copyrights and patent do not. (See submarine patents and abandonware). (IAANAL. IAAMDNYL. TINLA. ETLA>*)
Te difference here is that it costs next to nothing to take "Linux" out of the name of your product.
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server ?
ok, let's call it SuSE Enterprise Server, and list Linux as its kernel, on the side of the box.
You say that maybe you don't get enough recognition (> money ) without using th "Linux" trademark ? ok, you can always pay for it, or probably get it for "free", in exchange of some developers.
_If_ the name "Linux" is a revenue-generating part of your name, it's not that crazy that you have to pay for it. The good part is that nobody can blackmail you, because the cost of actually changing the name is usually negligible, although there could be costs associated with not having "Linux" in your name anymore. Nobody said you could profit off the name, though, the GPL doesn't say you can use the name of some project as you wish.
If, on the other hand, they didn't let you use the actual software, you could be in a problem, because changing the kernel of a server has a bigger cost associated than just reprinting some boxes. You could be blackmailed for a fraction of that cost, if the GPL didn't protect you.
All the article says is "more than 10%
Before citing the article, you might want to try actually READING the article, genius.
From TFA:
Not that this even touches on the fact that the GP's post was criticizing the story fo claiming 1/9 was equal to 10%, which it clearly wasn't, but if you're going to correct a correction, you might want to FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE, IDIOT.
Log off before you hurt yourself.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations"
1 in 9 is 11.11%, which is more than 10%. I don't see the inconsistency here?
In fact, 10% of 90 organizations would be 9.(yes, I realize it says 90-odd, but still)
More than 9 would imply at least 10 organizations. 10 out of 90-odd is about 1 in 9.
Why say more then 10 percent? why not say 10 or 12 or 89 or whatever the number is.
..." does not sound as interesting.
Probably because "10 companies signed
The fact that the majority has NOT signed is much more interseting.
Also disturbing to read that "The letter wasn't relevant to the majority of people who received it," . If **AA would start to send letters to just about anybdy and then say that it was not relevant to most people, there would be an outcry.
Perhaps even tha majority who DID sign were not realy involved in anything.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
When Apple called a project "Sagan", the astronomer got irritated, and told them to cease and desist. Then they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
This is pretty funny. What you guys might've missed in the Wikipedia article is that Sagan actually sued to have the project's name changed, and lost. Apple changed it to Butthead Astronomer anyway, which prompted Sagan to sue again, for libel. He lost again, but Apple changed the project name one more time, to "LAW", which stood for "Lawyers Are Wimps". :)
If every lawsuit was this amusing, perhaps the legal world wouldn't be so sickening.
OVER ten percent agreed. Wow! Ten! Thats, like, more than nine! Whew.
Oh wait. That means that somewhere in the neighborhood of ninety percent didn't? Well, if ten is bigger than nine then it must be bigger than ninety too.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.