Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1 in 9 Companies Sign Linux Trademark Letter

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the wonder-where-this-will-go dept.

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."

129 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. And the majority, you know the 90%.... by alsutton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like the other 9 out of 10 cats said they preferred things stay as they are?

    --
    Al Sutton
    1. Re:And the majority, you know the 90%.... by metricmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it didn't apply to them.

      "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names."

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    2. Re:And the majority, you know the 90%.... by Todesmetall · · Score: 1

      So why did LMI send the letter to these businesses then? Shouldn't it be LMI's job (or their lawyers' job) to at least superficially check if the recipients infringe the Linux trademark before sending out their letters?

    3. Re:And the majority, you know the 90%.... by Dizzle · · Score: 1

      Errr.... 8 out of 9 you mean?

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
  2. Re:Where will it go? by Prospero's+Grue · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, I understood that all the proceeds would be going into Lunis' operating system; Lunix.

    --
    The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
  3. Re:Where will it go? by HogynCymraeg · · Score: 1

    You say it like it's a bad thing.

  4. Re:Where will it go? by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 1

    L'unix... is that related to D'ebian?

    --

    Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

  5. Man, time flies by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was a time when Linux was just a handful of sources on an FTP server somewhere. Full of bugs, but its programmers were full of excitement about getting it up and running.

    Now, almost a decade later and the technology is progressing at a rapid pace and people everywhere are loading it up on their systems. I guess there really wasn't any other way for the system to evolve except into a bureaucracy. It's sad in a way.

    What is sad is that it's no longer about the code. It's all about who owns what and who can use this or that name. It's a huge business. It's not a hobbyist's operating system anymore.

    I guess that's all for the better, I suppose. More business attention means more bug fixes and faster extended functionality. But it kind of loses something intangible when people start thinking like top brass and less like the rank and file.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Man, time flies by Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There was a time when Linux was just a handful of sources on an FTP server somewhere. [...] Now, almost a decade later [...]

      Almost a decade and a half later, I think you mean. :)

    2. Re:Man, time flies by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      A decade? Make that two (GNU) and a bit

      --

      Perl Programmer for hire
  6. "Butthead Astronomer" by putko · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Along similar lines, part of the Apple Corp (Beatles record label) v. Apple Computer settlement was that the computer company stay out of the music industry to avoid trademark confusion. So when Macs started making sounds for the first time, the default sound was called "SoSuMi".

      But only after "Let It Beep" was rejected.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by podperson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they changed the project to "BHA" (as per the article). Folks were encouraged to infer that it stood for "butthead astronomer".

      The codename was for one of the first power macintosh desktops (the 7100/66).

      Given that the other two projects were called Piltdown Man (6100/60) and Cold Fusion (8100/80). Given that one was a deliberate scientific hoax and the other a famously premature and wrong press release, Sagan was actually being quite reasonable. Would you like that company?

      It's also worth noting that Sagan was chiefly in the news at the time as the highest profile name on the "Nuclear Winter" paper, which had an enormous political impact at that time and was highly politicized (some people didn't like the idea that a global nuclear war couldn't be fought and won).

      Oddly enough, while Apple has a fuzzy liberal reputation, plenty of the folks at Apple are conservative or even ultra-conservative, and I suspect that the name choices were someone's idea of a poke at "Nuclear Winter".

      For those of you too young to remember all this, "Nuclear Winter" was a catchy name for a very solid piece of science (and despite the title, it basically argued that a major nuclear war would have catastrophic climate impacts, not necessarily making the world cold, but definitely horrible), and dismissing it as pseudo-science is about as intelligent as dismissing "global warming" or evolution.

    4. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by MasTRE · · Score: 1

      > If every lawsuit was this amusing, perhaps the legal world wouldn't be so sickening.

      How true. However, it helps when you're a multi-billion-dollar company :)

      Oh, the irony (from the Wikipedia entry): "Though the project name was strictly internal and never used in public marketing, when Sagan learned of this internal usage, he sued Apple Computer to use a different project name -- other projects had names like "Cold fusion" and "Piltdown Man", and he was displeased at being associated with what he considered pseudoscience."

      --
      Must-not-watch TV!
    5. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      As I recall, virtually every climatologist and atmospheric physicist in the world dismissed it as pseudo-science.

      Not to mention that if you read the scenarios it was based on, the scenarios were entirely unrealistic vis-a-vis the way a nuclear war would actually be conducted.

      It was like the oft-stated notion that there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on the planet - yeah, if you space them evenly around the globe, which would never happen in any real war. In a real war, ninety percent of the nukes in the world would be toasted in the first hour.

      Carl Sagan was a self-promoter and (promoter of science - which wasn't bad) who never really did much actual science himself except early in his career.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      The truly funny thing is that the so called 'Sagan' project was a total dismal failure on the part of internal Apple developers to come up with a next-generation MacOS that wasn't just more code piled onto the old mess.

      They made several other attempts at a 'next gen MacOS' before the outsiders from NeXT came in and rescued them.

      Sagan should have been suing because being associated with Apple's 'Code Gurus' of the time put him in a bad light.

      --
      resigned
    7. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Ah, Sagan/BHA/LAW was a hardware project that was quite successful. I know because the 7100 was my second Macintosh system.

    8. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by podperson · · Score: 1

      As I recall, virtually every climatologist and atmospheric physicist in the world dismissed it as pseudo-science.

      Perhaps the same group who think global warming is just a theory? Or that ozone layer depletion couldn't possibly happen? Maybe the scientists who don't think cigarette smoking has any causal relationship to lung cancer?

      The critiques I have seen of "Nuclear Winter" (and there were plenty) were arguments at the margins about the assumptions fed into the climate models or their granularity (and in some cases predict a less severe or general effect).

      Take a look here:

      http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/vri/nwaos.htm

      "These papers have led to a surge of work in many research centers around the world, most of which have thus far confirmed the general thrust of the TTAPS model, and to a strategic reassessment by nuclear planners."

      Even if you take the least favorable view of this work, it hardly ranks "Nuclear Winter" next to Piltdown Man (a deliberate fraud) or Cold Fusion (bad science rushed to press before peer review).

      Not to mention that if you read the scenarios it was based on, the scenarios were entirely unrealistic vis-a-vis the way a nuclear war would actually be conducted.

      1) Nobody who actually planned how a nuclear war was to be fought has actually told us; 2) no nuclear was has ever been fought; and 3) wars never turn out exactly as planned, so I doubt you're in a position to make this assertion.

      It was like the oft-stated notion that there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on the planet - yeah, if you space them evenly around the globe, which would never happen in any real war. In a real war, ninety percent of the nukes in the world would be toasted in the first hour.

      Aside from being an attempt to attack one theory by likening it to another, unrelated theory... I'm not sure what you mean by "toasted". Even the most optimistic first strike scenario involves the side attacking first firing off many of its weapons before the other side is able to react, so its weapons are likely to explode.

      Second, both sides had huge submarine fleets armed with relately inaccurate and seldom-tested weapons whose sole purpose was massive indisciminate retaliation (their missiles were not expected to be very accurate and had multiple warheads).

      Now, you may argue that these weapons were only to be used as a "last resort" (e.g. to retaliate for a massive and successful fire strike by the other side) but the whole point of nuclear winter was that such a retaliation might simply kill everyone.

      Sagan's group assumed a "5000 megaton scenario" which assumes considerably less than 50% of the combined arsenals of both sides at the time, and if you assume a highly successful first strike followed by submarine retaliation by the other side (which no longer has significant land-based weapons), that's about right.

      For perspective:

      The US has 18 Trident class SSBNs, each carrying 24 missiles, each with 8 half megaton warheads. So that's 1800 megatons or so just in Trident submarines (which were not going to be stopped by any first strike). The US also had Polaris missile subs, and the Soviets had more than the US did (although their vessels were less reliable).

    9. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "1) Nobody who actually planned how a nuclear war was to be fought has actually told us; 2) no nuclear was has ever been fought; and 3) wars never turn out exactly as planned, so I doubt you're in a position to make this assertion."

      The assertion is based on the simple fact that if the US hit Russia first, Russia's weapons (except for submarines) would be toast. If Russia hit the US first, all of the US's SECOND-STRIKE weapons would be toast (unless our ABM defenses proved extremely effective, which is doubtful.) The US first-strike weapons would presumably be launched on sufficient warning.

      In either case, MOST of the world's weapons would be destroyed in the first hour. The submarine weapons would be one-megaton at best (and the following references indicate 500 KT or less) and directed at specific targets - not spread all over the continent. Any notion of "massive indiscriminate retaliation" is nonsense.

      A quick Google finds this paper:
      http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp. html

      Which I quote:

      (1) Targeting. The TTAPS paper uses a baseline case of 5000 megatonnes (MT), supplemented by a wide range of other scenarios which also lead to nuclear winter effects. Though in general terms some of the scenarios appear reasonable, no detailed strategic rationale is offered for any of them[22]. A cynic might say that the key characteristic of the scenarios is that they produce sufficient smoke or dust to produce nuclear winter. This is illustrated by the 100MT scenario, which is often misinterpreted as 100 bombs on 100 cities. Actually it involves 1000 bombs and the burning of a vast number of cities each of just the right size. It is easy to misinterpret the results for this scenario as showing that any 100MT war is enough to trigger nuclear winter, whereas any militarily realistic targeting of 100MT would cause relatively few cities to burn and probably produce little cooling according to present models.

      If the scenarios had been designed to produce a spread of soot injections rather than a fairly constant soot injection for different megatonnages, the result of nuclear winter would have seemed more sensitive to variations in targeting.

      Ehrlich et al. concentrate on a 10,000MT scenario which generates more severe environmental effects than either the Ambio scenario[23] or the TTAPS baseline case. They state that they take the TTAPS 10,000MT 'severe' case as their reference case because of policy implications[24]. (According to Michael MacCracken, TTAPS in their draft paper presented a 10,000MT baseline. After receiving comments, they corrected an error of a factor of 2 in the smoke density and also reset the baseline to 5000MT. These two changes counteracted each other, leaving the baseline consequences unchanged. Ehrlich et al. considered a maximum but to them plausible scenario which, after the factor of 2 adjustment, turned out to be the TTAPS 10,000MT scenario[25].)

      This survivalist Web site
      http://www.aussurvivalist.com/nuclear/factsvsmyths .htm
      also refers to a number of myths about nuclear war, including the nuclear winter scenario. They cite the following:

      "Non-propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  7. 9 in 10 didn't... by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the bright side, this is vastly better success ratio than SCO had.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  8. We need a new license plate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anybody remember the UNIX license plate?

    1. Re:We need a new license plate by BuffaloBill · · Score: 1

      There is one, from Compaq in 2000, and it sez Linux is a registered trademare of Linus Torvalds on the bottom.....unfortunately can't use it here as we have plates on both ends of the vehicle.

  9. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by vegetasaiyajin · · Score: 1

    So... 10% is 1 in 9? What the hell is going on? Is pi equal to 3 now?

    It says More than 10%.
    1/9 > 10%, so your reasoning is wrong.

    --

    My heart is pure, but make no mistake, it's pure evil
  10. Yesterday was gamespot by Saiyine · · Score: 1


    Now two zdnet stories in a row. Nice way of avoiding dupes!

    --
    Dreamhost superb hosting.
    Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
  11. Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Free to use it, but only if Linus Torvalds approves. I know I'll be moderated down for this, but it needs to be said.

    Is it just me, or is FreeBSD is starting to look pretty good right now from an ideological point of view? Pulling out lawyers is an awfully Microsoft-ish/SCO-ish thing to do.

    --
    Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    1. Re:Free as in ... by DaHat · · Score: 2

      It just has to do with the name.

      This is not unlike you making your own Version of the Firefox browser and calling it LellorFireFox. Despite the code being open source, the name and graphics are often not, so you would need to change both sufficiently to have it truly be your own version (despite OSS implications).

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:Free as in ... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is it just me, or is FreeBSD is starting to look pretty good right now from an ideological point of view?

      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
    3. Re:Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 1

      I understand where you're coming from, but where do you draw the line?

      If a company advertises custom-built Linux firewalls / intranet servers / or whatever and uses Linux logos and graphics, is that not acceptable?

      Yet Linux distributions often use these trademarked terms and figuroos without any legal action taken against them.

      if it's only about companies using the terms and figuroos for things which clearly are not Linux-based or have anything to do with Linux, perhaps it's more understandable, but how many companies do you suppose are doing that?

      I don't really understand this latest spat of legal attacks - it seems very uncharacteristic of Linus. It looks like the LMI is just trying to cash in on the Linux name, despite people having used it commercially and non-commercially for years without paying these license fees. It just seems a bit odd to me.

      --
      Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    4. Re:Free as in ... by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD has *always* looked pretty good from an ideological pov. It's just that it's never had the coolness factor that Linux has had.

    5. Re:Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll grant you that.

      What about systems, though? Let's draw up a scenario so that we're both on the same page. Company XYZ is a computer vendor, the CEO, Miss F, has decided that the company should take the Linux route since she has experienced Linux as being a very reliable and powerful system. The company produces Linux servers and desktops, and advertises them as such.

      Does Miss F get a letter from LMI demanding a license fee for each system her company sells, or some sort of global sublicensing fee? (The LMI states that for-profit companies will be charged according to profit, but they don't state whether that's total corporate profit or whether different divisions will be treated differently - ie, will each license or sublicense be charged according to a certain bracket?

      In 5 years' time, will the LMI be extracting vast tribute from Linux vendors, and blackmailing them a-la Microsoft?

      LMI: You are free to install FreeBSD on your systems, vendor and customer, but you will then be charged more for Linux licenses, or, depending on how far you push FreeBSD, you will not be allowed to sell systems containing our trademarked "Linux" text, graphics, terms and figuroos systems any longer.

      Pretty scary.
      --
      Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    6. Re:Free as in ... by Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't really understand this latest spat of legal attacks - it seems very uncharacteristic of Linus.

      I think you'll find it's something that Linus himself would rather not do and has no interest in doing - but the way the trademark "system" works is that you have to make a reasonable pretense of defending your trademark (from unlicensed use) or you lose it. It's quite different to other sorts of intellectual property concepts like patents or copyright.

      And that's really all there is to it. If you must blame something, blame the system - don't blame Linus (and definitely don't blame LMI or the lawyers they hire).

    7. Re:Free as in ... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      The reason everyone thinks this is uncharacteristic of Linus is that they think of him as the open source hero the media has made him out to be, an accessible version of RMS. But his position has always been that open source is good because it is a more effective of development than closed source, and not about free software at all. He has repeatedly stated that he is "practical" where these things are concerned, and demonstrated that he means it, Bitkeeper for example.

      Linus was likely advised by a lawyer that he trusts that this is a good idea, so he's doing it. Many in the free software movement might reject a move like this on ideological grounds, but Linus' never really demonstrated that he holds tightly to any ideologies, so there's no reason to expect it from him.

      If you're looking for an "Information Wants to be Free" hero, you'd better keep looking.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    8. Re:Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 1
      What you say makes sense, and obviously if that's all there is to it that's fine and well.

      What I'm concerned about is that the trademark law could be wangled into allowing the LMI to manipulate and dominate the Linux computing world, and injure Linux and the Free/Open source movement in general by giving it a bad rep and creating animosity between the LMI and companies building their products with or on top of Linux.

      Of course it would be nice not to blame Linus or the lawyers involved or anything like that, and I don't necessarily have a problem with Linus or any individual lawyers, but unfortunately in this day and age, especially in North America, legal issues have spiraled out of control, and whenever lawyers get involved, it's usually about extracting money from someone or some entity. I don't want to sound dramatic, but this isn't a free society from that point of view anymore, and there are too many laws and regulations which can be manipulated by top dogs and their lawyers - and this is why I am concerned whenever I read about organizations like these whose sole purpose seems to be milking business by using the legal system.
      --
      Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    9. Re:Free as in ... by rob.wolfe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the heck are you smoking? How do you get from the effort that is required by statute and common law to defend a trademark to "will the LMI be extracting vast tribute from Linux vendors, and blackmailing them a-la Microsoft?"

      What is really scary to me is that there is this kneejerk reaction that if an organization does anything at all to protect "intellectual property" -- a horrid term but one that I think actually does apply to trademarks because someone else using your trademarks can lessen the value of them -- it is some slippery slope from there to fiendish machinations and demands for royalties.

      Call me a pollyanna but I refuse to believe that everyone in the world is inherently evil

    10. Re:Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 1

      The reason everyone thinks this is uncharacteristic of Linus is that they think of him as the open source hero the media has made him out to be, an accessible version of RMS.

      No, that's not the reason I find it uncharacteristic of him. I find it uncharacteristic of him because I thought he had more common sense than to go along with something like this - it is a slippery slope.

      Linus was likely advised by a lawyer that he trusts that this is a good idea, so he's doing it. Many in the free software movement might reject a move like this on ideological grounds, but Linus' never really demonstrated that he holds tightly to any ideologies, so there's no reason to expect it from him.

      I understand what you're saying here, but I still maintain that it's a sad state of affairs when the legal system becomes so complex and overpowering that people are either forced to be squashed and milked by it, while others profit from it in the most slimy ways imaginable. This isn't limited to inviduals or businesses - businesses (usually smaller to medium sized businesses) get burned by these tactics. It's a screwed up system and we are unfortunate to be living in such an unfree society. Soon there will be so many laws and regulations that everyone in North America will either be a criminal or face the possibility of being sued for remembering song lyrics or using a name they shouldn't have. (Get that sticker off your bumper or pay the $200 license fee to LMI !) Think I'm exagerrating? Maybe. It's not that bad yet, but how bad it will get is definitely not clear.

      As for information wants to be free, I'm ambivalent about that - I prefer the public domain mentality - free software should be public domain and you can do whatever you want with it. Yes, including redistributing modified binaries. I'm also a supporter of abolishing "IP" law. If you want to copy something, you should be able to copy it. People survived for centuries before Britney Spears and Windows XP were household names, and there is no way you will ever be able to convince me that they should be continuously paid for $0 copies of data or sound.

      Then again, that's just my opinion and I'm just a loony libertarian. Take it or leave it :)

      --
      Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    11. Re:Free as in ... by orasio · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 1

      What is really scary to me is that there is this kneejerk reaction that if an organization does anything at all to protect "intellectual property" -- a horrid term but one that I think actually does apply to trademarks because someone else using your trademarks can lessen the value of them -- it is some slippery slope from there to fiendish machinations and demands for royalties.

      The problem is that the various laws that make up "Intellectual property" as you call it, were conceived to protect people owning this property from exploitation and to protect the integrity of their works. That ideal is a good one, but it has slowly vanished, and today's intellectual property laws are geared towards milking the public and making as much money for already moneyed corporations as possible. The people getting burned now are individuals as well as small and medium sized businesses - long the staple of the middle and upper-middle classes. Unless a complete reform of these IP laws takes place, or they are abolished completely, I will always view organizations proposing things like this with the utmost suspicion.

      Can you, in all honesty, say for certain that the LMI will not use the massive amounts of laws and regulations surrounding "Intellectual property" to manipulate and control the Linux computing world, and in doing injure the reputation and the progress of the free and open source software world? Personally, I have my doubts.

      --
      Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    13. Re:Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 1
      So what you're saying is that they are only going after the name itself, and not the related images, text, figuroos, etc? That would be easy enough to solve by just taking "Linux" out of the names of the products, as you suggest. But if they start digging deeper and going for "Linux-related" stuff as well, things could get messier.

      The best thing all-round would be a rework of the system, to something like this: Have a list of copyrighted and trademarked products, like

      http://figuroos.linuxmark.org/

      These are all of the figuroos that (x) produce (endorsed by us). If you want to produce a competing figuroo, do so, but you will have to pay $xxx.xxx.

      http://plushies.linuxmark.org/

      These are all of the plushies that (x) produce (endorsed by us). If you want to produce competing plush toys, (like the Linux penguin etc), you will need to pay $xxx.xxx

      ...and so on.

      Otherwise, it really is just a slippery slope and up to lawyerly interpretation - they will end up doing whatever they want and exacting vast tribute.

      --
      Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    14. Re:Free as in ... by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      This is only about companies that use Linux in their official name. Not for using the software and not for advertising etc... Create a company called "The Real FreeBSD" and I assure that the FreeBSD organization or some representative for them will quickly sue you. What is happening with Linux is that with its popularity, publications and companies are starting up things like "The True Linux" and either spreading FUD about Linux or claiming that they are the only real version of Linux, or some other ridiculous claim. Linus enforcing the copyright on the *name* is the best thing he can do for the community. The last thing we need to see in the news is that "Linux Corporation formally announced that Linux sucks and they hope babies die" If Linus doesn't enforce the copyright then there is nothing stopping Microsoft or anyone else from doing exactly that. This applies in any country.
      Regards,
      Steve

    15. Re:Free as in ... by DigitalLogic · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100% on this. Why is Mr. Torvalds trying to assert his control over a name that has long been associated with community contributions. This is as bad as SCO's legal fight againt Linux and I cannot help but think it is only going to get worse. Unless Mr. Torvalds is planning on representing the community and protecting the name in order to help battle against SCO. Either way, the trend is very bad.

    16. Re:Free as in ... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Like most of the rest of the comments in this vein, you really obviously have no clue about the discussions that have preceded this.

      Do a Google. Read previous /. discussions and the discussion on Groklaw.

      Get a clue.

      Start with this:

      The FreeBSD Foundation acquires the FreeBSD Trademark

          The FreeBSD Foundation is pleased to announce the acquisition of
          the FreeBSD trademark.

          In October of last year, Wind River Inc. agreed to assign the
          FreeBSD trademark to the FreeBSD Foundation. As with most things
          involving paperwork and government entities, progress has been
          slow, but transfer is now complete in both the U.S. and Germany.
          Transfer requests for the United Kingdom and Japan are expected
          to complete shortly.

          The Foundation would like to thank Wind River for their assistance
          with the Trademark transfer, and Murray Stokely for his diligence
          and hard work in shepherding the process.

          As originally registered by Walnut Creek CDROM, the FreeBSD
          trademark applies to "CD ROMs featuring an archive of computer
          programs which may be accessed for use archived on a CDROM." With
          the trademark transfer complete in two jurisdictions, the Foundation
          is now turning its attention to updating the trademark to reflect
          its current usage by the FreeBSD project. The new trademark
          filing should be submitted to all four jurisdictions in January.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    17. Re:Free as in ... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      LMI only have rights to the word "Linux". One word, that's all. Tux the Penguin is copyright to Larry Ewing.

      There are no "figaroos" or "plushies" involved.

      Further examples;

          Red Hat / Fedora Core - Doesn't contain the word Linux as part of the product name. "Red Enterprise Linux" does, they pay fees for that. They also sell it for up to $2500 so they damn well _should_ be paying fees.

          White Box - Same product as above but doesn't include the word Linux, RedHat, or any of RedHat's trademark images, so don't owe anyone any fees.

          IBM - mentions Linux is various product names, and pays for the privilidge.

          Debian - Name doesn't contain the word Linux as part of the 'product name' so not a problem.

          Ubuntu - Doesn't contain the word Linux

          Canonical - Provides Linux support but aren't using Linux as part of the company name.

          Mandrake - Doesn't contain the word Linux

          knoppix - Doesn't contain the word Linux

          kanotix - Doesn't contain the word Linux

          SCO "Linux Kernel Personality" - make these bastards pay!

          Foo Linux Users Group - Fair Use (AFAIK)

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    18. Re:Free as in ... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      So it's like someone, hypothetically, coming out with a product and calling it 'Red Hat Linux' without kissing Linus' ring?

      --
      resigned
  12. Strategy by Krast0r · · Score: 1

    Now all that's left to do is for SCO to bide their time and when everyone else has given up their rights to the name then BAM, they strike.

    --
    Matthew Grint Midnight Artists
  13. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no reading comprehension

    You sure hit that nail on the head...if you go back and read the summary carefully , you'll note it says "More than 10 percent".

    Pot, meet kettle.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  14. In defense of Linus. by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The way I understand Trademarks, Copyrights, and other intellectual property (IANAL), you have to defend the marks - even if you have to fight every little battle. Otherwise, if Linus allowed someone to market "Linux Condoms" without challenging the name, he, in effect, gives permission. After that, fighting the use of that name becomes more difficult. You wouldn't want to see SCO change there name to "Linux SCO" or even to "Supreme Corp Of Linux" (SCOL). I know of some very ethical people who have the best intentions who will fight for their trademarks (An example)- you have to protect yourself because no one else will!

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
    1. Re:In defense of Linus. by rk87 · · Score: 1

      I find the acronym IANAL funny. Whenever I see it, I first read it as "Yes, I [do] Anal". :)

      --
      I'M NOT ANGRY!
    2. Re:In defense of Linus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trademarks need to be defended. Copyrights and patent do not. (See submarine patents and abandonware). (IAANAL. IAAMDNYL. TINLA. ETLA>*)

  15. Strange thing to do by DrMowinckel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    quote:
    "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names," he said, adding 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.

    I am all for protecting the Linux trademark, and I (think I) understand the reasons behind it. However, I feel that LMI should really be sure that the when they send out threatening letters, the recipients ARE using Linux as part of their business/product name. Their strategy seems like harassment.

    --
    In soviet Russia, Raymond loves Everybody, including, but not limited to, YOU!
    1. Re:Strange thing to do by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do people always assume letters from lawyers must be threatening? Can't they ever be just informative messages and polite inquires?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Strange thing to do by DrMowinckel · · Score: 1

      Short answer: Past experience. ;-)

      Long answer:
      I actually think that no matter how informative and polite a letter from a lawyer is, there is always some amount of threat in it. The fact that some lawyer sends you a letter is a rather good indication that you and/or your actions has been in somebody's searchlight, which is never a good feeling. And, IMHO, lawyers ARE aware of this, and should be considerate, especially if they represent a good-will organisation, such as LMI.

      --
      In soviet Russia, Raymond loves Everybody, including, but not limited to, YOU!
  16. Forecast by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Microsoft buys the name "Linux" from Linus (or his heirs), they're going to regret this.

    1. Re:Forecast by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      Trademarks must be used. Either ms would have to renamed windows to Linux or actually make a linux distribution. I can't see them doing either.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    2. Re:Forecast by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that Microsoft would never put out something called Linux even if it meant that they could put the hurt on every current Linux distributor? That's worse than silly.

    3. Re:Forecast by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Aww, c'mon, you're not thinking like Microsoft! They could put out a Linux distribution simply called "Linux Linux", so as to make average consumers link their product, more than any other distro, to the word Linux. Then, they could fill it with bugs in EVERY SINGLE KERNEL MODULE! The thing would panic more than Windows BSOD'd! And of course, they'd then sell it beside Windows in every retail outlet so people knew that there was competition, it just simply wasn't as good. ...I really need to own a business.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:Forecast by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      I can't believe this crap gets modded up all the time on slashdot.
      The Linux trademark is owned by the "LINUX MARK INSTITUTE", a non-profit organisation who protect it. They cannot sell it to MS or anyone else.

    5. Re:Forecast by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Not bad (technically wrong of course - they hold a sub-licence). It would be cool to see who has current rights to use the name also listed on the site.

      Your are only as non-profit as you can actively demonstrate (nothing against the LMI of course just the nature of modern industry/politics/media PR=B$, you have to go out of your way to prove you are not like the rest of them).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  17. Trademark == reputation by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that some of this is about reputation. If Linux is to become a widely-used, trusted OS, then it needs trustworthy businesses to provide trustworthy services. The first step is to control the name "Linux" so that only those companies that adhere to certain standards, codes of conduct, etc. can be allowed to use the marque. Linus can't control the codebase, but he can control the name.

    I'm not saying that the Linux Mark Institute is doing this, but it is what they should do as part of the Linux maturation process.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Trademark == reputation by matthewsmalley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.

      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.

    2. Re:Trademark == reputation by Kalak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Compare this to the Open Group owning the trademark of UNIX. Linux companies fought for the trademark of Linux and gave it to Linus (as it should be), and he has contracted out to a group to keep his trademark rights appropriately, in accordance with the needs of the law.

      I don't hear anyone claiming the Open group is making a ton of money off the trademark of UNIX. I'd say your comment is dead on and the recent Linux trademark efforts are highly similar to the UNIX trademark issues.

      Preserving the good name of "Linux" is what this is all about.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    3. Re:Trademark == reputation by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    4. Re:Trademark == reputation by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      Preserving the good name of "Linux" is what this is all about.

      Baloney. This is being done primarily because the large vendors want Linux®, not Linux generic. "Protecting the good name of Linux" is just the sugar coating used to get the sheep to swallow it.

      The lawyer says "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." That means he was trolling for people/organizations to possibly sue in the future. Respond to that letter and you're on the hook, whether you agree, sign, or not.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    5. Re:Trademark == reputation by Kalak · · Score: 1

      Trolls who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

      Note this is from 2000, and it was Slashdotted

      If you don't like the trademark thing (which grew out of misue of the Linux name), fork.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    6. Re:Trademark == reputation by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1
      Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.

      Bzzt. wrong. Free/Open software is about not controlling what somebody does with the software. FSF still owns Emacs. In fact they asked author of XEmacs to sign the copywrite over to them.

      GPL and other Free licenses are not about ownership, the original author still retains ownership of the original work and name. The philosophy is not about surrenduring your rights as the author, its about granting rights to others to use your work, and possibly add to it.

      Look at the most popular opensource database: MySQL. If you're willing to adhere to the GPL, you can use it all you want, for free. If your are not, they will SELL you a non-GPL license. At no time are they willing to surrender their ownership of the product.

      Please don't confuse distribution and usage rights ownership, copywrite, and trademark.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    7. Re:Trademark == reputation by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      So the first point here is that regardless of you call your Linux distribution "Linux Something" or something totally different, you'll want to protect that name if you are serious about making a big commercial distribution. -- Linus Torvalds

      I haven't forgotten history, you just don't pay attention to the present. Check here to see some of the things you might have missed while living in mommy's basement.

      The only reason there's any support for licensing the trademark at all is Linus has a good track record, but he might not always control the trademark. Then what happens? This is a real issue, and being concerned about it doesn't make me a troll.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    8. Re:Trademark == reputation by Kalak · · Score: 1

      This post is all about the article you cite.

      Changes:
      You sign a contract for a specific jouristiction. Last I heard worldwide contracts are not the norm, and if you read your own source "it is not possible to simply create a worldwide trademark license" (LWN).

      A new clause for being in breech of the contract. It gives permission to seek relief for a breech, and a timeline for fixing it. You mean LMI can ask someone to play nice and not be snubbed as a result? The bastards!

      *This is the "money grubbing" part, so everyone pay attention:
      A new fee structure. The cost of running this show is something I have no idea of, and no one else who lacks this can say anything about if this is excessive or reasonable. I don't care how much pro bono you get, there is a cost of LMI doing business. The paper they use may grow on trees, but LMI doesn't own any trees. LWN even states in the the article you quoted: "The old licensing fee was simply not enough to fund LMI at the level it needed to properly manage the trademark."

      Also there is Bruce Perens objection that you sign a contract and can't transfer that permission to a 3rd party. In other words, you can't give permission for others, they have to come sign the contract themselves. 3rd parties cannot be held to a contract they are not a party to, so leaving this transferrable would leave the possibility for abuse there. i.e.: "www.debianlinux.xxx" So they either must get permission or name their redistribution something other than Linux. (GNU/Debian maybe, that's Debian's issue.)

      If you actually read the article you post in support of your position, you'll find it not in support of your position. It concludes in the final paragraph:
      "So a group like the Linux Mark Institute seems like a necessary evil."

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  18. Err by kmmatthews · · Score: 1

    1 in 9 > 10%. So that would be going down.

    [/pendant]

    --
    feh. stuff.
    1. Re:Err by Pete · · Score: 1

      Pete's Brain: Ah well, I'm already on a pedantic roll in my comments for this story, so why not respond to this? :)

  19. Ratios? by oO0OoO0Oo · · Score: 1
    Without having read TFA, if the numbers given in the intro. are correct (ie 10 percent of 90 and not 10 out of 90) then that's not exactly 1 in 9, despite the similarity of the digits.

    Good trick though.

    --
    We Are Familiar With Elephants By Virtue Of Their Size.
    1. Re:Ratios? by telecsan · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

  20. I think it was more than iritation... by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 1
    Dr. Sagan was more than a scientist at that time and was more of a "personality". In other words, defending his name was the same as if Apple named a project "Sting". I'm sure Sting would be all over that because his name, along with his music, is his product and his livelyhood.

    Sagan was also sick at the time and I'm sure he was protecting a legacy for his family and his other interests that depended on his name being worth something. Just my guess.

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
    1. Re:I think it was more than iritation... by milktoastman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bad example, maybe. Sting should deal with the fact that his stage name is generic. Maybe Robert Redford should sue him?

    2. Re:I think it was more than iritation... by kaoshin · · Score: 1

      Sting the musician, or Sting the pro wrestler? Oh wait... I get your point.

  21. Re:Whose business model is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hah. Nice troll, I can see why you didn't sign in for that one.

    SCO's business strategy was to lie to practically everyone and hope that the courts found in their favour. As you can see, that's not going so well.

    The Linux trademark isn't a business strategy, it's just an attempt to ensure that no one uses the Linux name without his permission in their products. That isn't exactly big news. The Mozilla Foundation does it already, and there's bound to be a number of others who have adopted a similar policy.

  22. In my newbie days... by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 1

    I thought it meant "I'm ANAL"!

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
  23. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by yitzhak · · Score: 1

    Your reasoning is wrong, actually. Just because 1/9 > 10% doesn't mean that "more than 10%" (which is all the article says) is automatically 1 in 9. Heck, 1/2 > 10%, but "more than 10%" does not entail 1 in 2. There's no evidence that "1 in 9" is anything other than sloppy editors.

    Think before you post.

  24. Other way around? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    Personally, I think the bigger news is that just under 90% of the 90-odd organisations that received a letter have not responded to requests to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name.

    In other words, 80 of those companies may attempt to assert a legal claim to the 'Linux' name now or in the future. This is a hell of a bigger volume (and worry) than the 10 that said they wouldn't.

    Finally, if not all of them were using the 'Linux' name in their business/product/service name - what exactly was the point in sending them this letter? So they could ignore it?

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Other way around? by Rolan · · Score: 1

      At the same time, it's quite possible that the other 90% of the businesses sent the letter don't need to sign it. Only for certain uses would you need to sign it, if they don't meet those uses, why would they?

      --
      - AMW
    2. Re:Other way around? by MoralHazard · · Score: 1

      In other words, 80 of those companies may attempt to assert a legal claim to the 'Linux' name now or in the future.

      I think you're using a rhetorical gesture that's kind of a logical fallacy--not quite, but sort o. To wit, the fact that I haven't signed the letter means that I may attempt to assert a legal claim to the Linux name now of in the future. What of it?

      When a company receives a letter like that, there dozens of perfectly good reasons not to sign it that don't spring from intentions to use Linux as a trademark:

              - The letter was sent out only a short time ago (weeks?); in the time frames of many companies' legal departments (who would HAVE to sign off on this), that's barely a blink of an eye. They may need more time to consider it.

              - The letter was entirely unsolicited. Most people, myself included, are pretty uncomfortable with signed unsolicited letters-of-intent that come in the mail. They may suspect that there's a hidden agenda in the letter that hasn't been revealed, and they don't want to make themselves vulnerable.

              - The letter isn't rude, but it still gives of a presumption that the companies receiving it are somehow treading in a legal gray area. Most companies, and people, view this as a kind of accusation, or possibly the beginnings of an accusation, and resent that someone has begun a dialogue that way. They might come around, once they've had the chance to discuss the issue with the lawyer who sent the letter.

      Finally, if not all of them were using the 'Linux' name in their business/product/service name - what exactly was the point in sending them this letter? So they could ignore it?

      It's very hard to come up with a comprehensive list of companies that are using Linux as a trademark without asking. They probably had a reasearcher or paralegal draft up a list of the 90 biggest companies that they could find who MIGHT be using it, and are using this as a sort of representative sample.

      I mean, the lawyer DID say in the quote in the article that he was trying to discern who it applied to by the response or lack thereof.

  25. Trademarks must be defended by bokmann · · Score: 2, Informative

    For an understanding of why Linus has to do this, read this article at the Motley Fool (registration might be required)

    http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rule maker000501.htm

  26. Trademark control is a prerequisite for integrity by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  27. Re:Where will it go? by Danuvius · · Score: 1
    So the code is open source...but not the name.
    That's right!

    You're *NOT* allowed to look at, change, or redistribute the source code of the English word 'Linux'... unless you have specific permission from the author to do so... assuming anyone has copyright on it... so... on second thought... maybe you can tweak the hell out of that 'print "Linux";'

    Go, go, go!!! Do it quickly!!!!!111!!!1ONE!!!
    --
    Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
  28. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    So... 10% is 1 in 9? What the hell is going on? Is pi equal to 3 now?

    No, no, no. The article got it wrong! 10% is 1 in 10, and pi remains to be 3.333333... as it's always been/

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  29. Re:Whose business model is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Gollum .... is that you?

  30. Re:Whose business model is this? by Jekler · · Score: 1

    Yes, The Mozilla Foundation does it already. But that's not big news because they've ALWAYS done it. Linus & Lawyers doing it is a whole different story because they've just started it.

    I'm a Linux fan myself (Mandriva), but adopting a litigious attitude doesn't make FOSS more attractive to me, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. If I wanted to trade blows with patents, trademarks... reputation this, strategy that... we've got Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and Dell for that bag of shenanigans.

    To me, the whole FOSS spirit was supposed to encompass a non-litigious atmosphere. Open Standards, a place where the only "law" is the opinion of the masses.

    If the FOSS community starts ruling by litigation, what next? We start trying to strong arm other companies out of the market in the Big Business way? Maybe the FOSS community should start patenting ideas and technologies now to prevent anyone else from potentially building their own operating system that could eventually threaten the popularity of Linux.

    Everytime I hear about another FOSS project taking on the characteristics of The Man, it just makes me wonder, why bother? If the whole goal of the FOSS movement is to eventually become the same as the corporate environment, why not shave some time off our race and just start traditional corporations?

    I like the FOSS community, but I don't want to look back and read in an economics book some day a definition of FOSS that reads:

    FOSS - A method of doing business which became popular in the late 1990's and early 2000's. The idea is to start out with a grassroots campaign for an idealistic product and eventually sue everyone who latches on once your market share approaches a level which stands a chance of threatening already established market-holders.

  31. I still think it's already too late. by RiffRafff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Hand me a Kleenex."

    "Please Xerox this for me."

    Two examples of how trademarks have made it into common speech. "Linux" made it even faster, since it has been an all-encompassing term for a collection of software for years. "Linux" is only the kernel; a small fraction of the software that comes on distributions that include the name "Linux:" Red Hat Linux, Debian Linux, Suse Linux, Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux, Damn Small Linux, etc. The majority of the software on these distros is true "third-party" software, and the next largest category is the GNU "glue" that holds it all together. The kernel is way down the line, here.

    Torvalds is likely to do for "GNU/Linux" what Stallman never could: get people to start calling the OS after something other than just the kernel.

    After all, how should we divide up credit among developers of all this software? People balked at calling it "GNU/Linux," but at this rate, GNU sounds a hell of a lot better than GNU/Linux/Apache/GIMP/OSS/KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/ Xmms/Mozilla/Audacity/X11/ARTS/CUPS/Java/Mplayer/W INE/MySQL/Perl/Python.

    Be careful, Linus...be careful what you wish for.

    --
    "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    1. Re:I still think it's already too late. by drxenos · · Score: 1

      "look how bright the sun is."

      "Have an apple."

      So, what is your point? Kleenex and Xerox may be commonly used, but so are Kool-Aid and Bandaid. ALL are still trademarked by there respective owners.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    2. Re:I still think it's already too late. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      GNOME and KDE are far more different than any combination of kernel features. IMO, the entire process is screwed up... GNOME has pretty much everything they need to run a distro, but they don't... instead, they have three dozen other distros that happen to use the exact same software GNOME's been developing all this time. Ditto with KDE.

      Why don't we just have two distros, GNOME and KDE, compatible with each other (by installing the other's libraries), and both running on the Linux kernel? "Desktop Environment" = "Distro" makes a hell of a lot more sense to me, especially since the "desktop environment" is already something like 90% of the way to BEING a distro.

      --
      Comment of the year
    3. Re:I still think it's already too late. by 2short · · Score: 1


      Right, so start selling tissues that say "Kleenex" on the side of the box, and see what happens; you'll get sued and lose. Sell "Biily-Bobs nifto dispenser full of Kleenex", and no problem, as long as the tissues inside are actual Kleenex.

      People will go right on calling it Linux, and Linus will let them, and he couldn't necessarily stop them if he wanted to. If he defends the trademark, he can, and presumably will, stop companies from calling something Linux which is not.

      No significant number are going to call it GNU anything. Not for any good technical reason, but because Gnu is a stupid word. Stallman ensured it would be "Linux" when he went for a stupid recursive-acronym hacker joke. Sorry, but names aren't about giving credit where due, they are about having people know what you're talking about. 99% of the time anyone says "Linux", they are not talking about just the kernel. Therefore "Linux" is not just the kernel, no matter how much that may have been anyones intent.

  32. Unix does this, so why not Linux? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to jump through hoops to be able to legally call something "Unix," so why not Linux? This may sound silly at first, until you realize that certain disreputable organizations may eventually try to deliberately muddy the waters by creating "Linux" products that are not actually Linux. Kudos to the Linux folks for taking the initiative now, instead of waiting for trouble.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  33. Re:Thanks for playing, but you're an idiot. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    All the article says is "more than 10%

    Before citing the article, you might want to try actually READING the article, genius.

    From TFA:
    A lawyer acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds has hailed as "favourable" the fact one in nine Australian vendors targeted by a letter campaign asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so.


    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

  34. So how many? by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why say more then 10 percent? why not say 10 or 12 or 89 or whatever the number is.

    Probably because "10 companies signed ..." does not sound as interesting.

    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.
    1. Re:So how many? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. If it is a Linux or Apple-based company, they say "more than 10 percent" making it sound like a good thing.

      If it were Windows-related, they would say "less than 15 percent", making it out to be a bad thing.

  35. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by vegetasaiyajin · · Score: 1

    Your reasoning is wrong, actually. Just because 1/9 > 10% doesn't mean that "more than 10%" (which is all the article says).

    My reasoning is correct. I only said the poster's reasoning was wrong. I never said the article was right. The poster claimed 1/9 is wrong because it is not equal to 10%. The article might be wrong, but not for the reason the poster stated.

    --

    My heart is pure, but make no mistake, it's pure evil
  36. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    #define PI 3
    #define 1/10 1/9

    Problems solved.

  37. Captian! She canna handle the spin! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  38. Re:Dupes and Algebra... by Adelbert · · Score: 1

    1/9 == "More than 10%". Buy a calculator if you need to check that out. Has UID but didn't subscribe (still proud that I'm not an AC).

  39. your sig by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    i hope that sig is a joke.

    if not, you show the same level of understanding there as you do of trademark law: little-to-none.

    sum.zero

    1. Re:your sig by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Fucking right... everyone knows that's the Atlantic provinces role!

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  40. payback? by literate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    we use debian linux from Progeny in our FileEngine. we paid the LMI for our use of "linux" in one of our service marks: "Driven by Linux - Non-Stop File Power"

    why not? i'd pay samba too for the use of their trademark. they provide the foundation of our systems. i don't mind paying...shouldn't they both reap some benefits for their contributions to our success?

    1. Re:payback? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You better tell all those people that don't understand trademark law that.

      All the idiots that keep asserting you need no sublicense to say "Powered by Linux" are so full of shit.

      At least we have a tangible example now, thanks.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  41. FreeBSD®, NetBSD®, Linux® by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Can we get the attributions right people?

    FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation.

    "NETBSD" is a registered trademark of The NetBSD Foundation.

    Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

    --
    Deleted
  42. I'm glad ***** is free software by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    That means that when I follow the license terms of ***** that I can make and distribute copies of ***** without having to obtain any further permission from the rights holders of *****. I sure wouldn't want anyone to come along and try to restrict my rights to distribute ***** by demanding money or other terms from me, because that would be a clear violation of the license terms of ***** that cover much of the third party code contained within *****. Indeed, the only thing that gives the 'owner' of ***** the right to distribute that code is his continuing compliance with those terms.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:I'm glad ***** is free software by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      Which goes back to the previous stories about Red Hat Enterprise Linux vs. the clones.

      Now that both Linux and Red Hat are resticting (or controlling, to say the least) the use of these trademarks, the term freedom needs some redefining.

      Luckily CentOS doesn't use either Linux or Red Hat in its distribution. Some other clones (like Tao Linux and White Box Enterprise Linux) do.

  43. I still don't get it by mattr · · Score: 1

    Okay surfing at 3 and reading some of the articles I think I know what is going on but I still don't get it.

    I find it misguided. The reasons I have heard so far do not make it sound like a good idea to do what the LMI is doing.

    Put it this way. Is there any situation you can honestly imagine that makes what LMI is doing seem remotely useful? I can't. This is not going to promote quality, it is just going to annoy people and has already caused at least one person to stop providing a free service to the Linux community (thelinuxapprentice.com, now down).

    It seems to me to go completely against the spirit of the GPL and ignores the contributions of the community.

    I find it hard to believe that trademark law requires Linus Torvalds to hire someone who enjoys massive spam and threats of legal shark attacks, against people who are 99.99% doing great stuff with Linux.

    The idea that this will maintain quality of linux purveyors, or that it will stop Microsoft from launching an offensive against Linux that could not be handled some other way or successfully ignored, is dumb.

    So yes, unfortunately I come to the conclusion that while I thought Linus was really a smart dude, in this case I think he has been taken in by someone who does NOT have the best interests of the community at heart. And at least one person IS making a good living at sending out these threatening letters.

    Why? BECAUSE SPAM PAYS.

    Thank you Linus for giving us this economics lesson again. Now please cease and desist. My own business would do much better if there were more companies with Linux in their names. It's as if the Linux community is so incredibly stupid and masochistic, that just as the SCO saga is winding to an end, we have to CREATE ANOTHER BULLSHIT LEGAL CHARADE because we have nothing better to do! How about leaving it to someone who DOES have something better to do, and who will only lurch into action if that doomsday scenario comes to pass? Make the minimum $1 if you must but fund the hiring of the legal team for the doomsday scenario by asking industry to help, if they agree it is a problem. This proactive crap is not useful and has a CHILLING EFFECT.

  44. INL by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Of course Malcolm wanted to identify the commercial entities who use the word "Linux": they're the ones who can pay to license it from him. Now companies, in Australia at least, won't be selling "Linux" unless they pay for a license. Which means Malcolm won't get his fees from them. And "Linux" won't be getting the aggressive, free marketing from companies focused on their bottom line. Which are the ones creating the Linux brand equity in other profitable corporations, which is where Linux most desperately needs acceptance. If companies are selling products with Linux under the hood, and respecting the GPL, but not identifying it as "Linux", they're not making it any easier for the next person to sell "Linux" into companies based on proven reputation.

    This is a watershed in the momentum that Linux has built in credibility within organizations. The software will continue to build that credibility with quality deployments, but the credibility won't be as recognizable as "Linux". I could understand this legal action to protect the Linux brand from deployers saying things are "Linux" that aren't really Linux: Linux certification is a real issue for companies using products. And some fundraising is necessary to fund such protective action. But charging some big Linux brands - like Red Hat, IBM, Novell and others - to pay to protect the brands on which they rely, is a much more sensible strategy.

    Every SW that is really Linux needs to be known as Linux, until it really is a household name. This strategy is at least premature, and therefore counterproductive. Unless the product is just fees paid to Malcolm. I still haven't heard from Torvalds on this operation. He owns the trademark that they're "protecting". Is this how he wants it used?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:INL by cranos · · Score: 1

      Look this is pretty simple okay. The trademark move is a defensive measure to stop some bastard taking the name in Australia and using it for his/her own purposes. This is NOT a money grab, nor is it a play for power.

      Just as the kernel is protected by copyright law, the name is and should be protected by trademark.

    2. Re:INL by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Just because you're oversimplifying it doesn't mean it's just that simple. The name is protected by trademark. No one is disputing that. Saying it's "not a money grab" is denied by the fact that they're charging $5000 for companies to use their trademark, "Linux".

      And it certainly is a power play: it's for power over the trademark, which obviously Torvalds controls. The question is what to do with that power. If Torvalds uses it to charge companies for licenses, which he's doing, then that will inhibit the use of the trademark, splitting the value in the brand equity - which is the opposite of protecting it. And a bad strategy for promoting Linux, as I've extensively detailed.

      I'm not arguing for or against your strawman arguments. I'm saying that charging these small companies relatively large fees, once they've committed to using the mark for years, is cannibalizing the less expendible part of the Linux industry: the small entrepreneurs finding a place for anything "Linux" in all the nooks and crannies in which they place their products. And I suggest a way for Torvalds to raise the money necessary to run the trademark operation, which is better suited to a successful strategy. Argue with that, and you've got an argument. Agree, and we're in agreement. Anything else is irrelevant to my discussion.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  45. Threats, messages, and inquiries? by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

    I thought most letters from lawyers were bills?

  46. Re:Witness the Torvalds money grab by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    I guess you're assuming he's making money off this for himself. Then again you must be his accountant.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  47. Legal spamming by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1

    It should be, and if they only selected 90 recipients anyway, it shouldn't have been too much work screening them manually before mailing them. In any case, it would have been less work than what they tricked 80 mistaken recipients to do for them, unpaid. One trained lawyer can probably screen each recipient's website in less than two minutes, while 80 non-lawyers are likely to spend more than five minutes on average reading the legal notice and contemplating whether they may be infringing.

    If I'll ever receive an unexpected legal notice from someone I don't know, I'll treat it as junk mail until the sender spends some effort to actually contact me, at which time I will request compensation for wasting my time before addressing whatever issue they want to bring to my attention.

  48. They have the right to remain silent... by The+Monster · · Score: 1
    Personally, I think the bigger news is that just under 90% of the 90-odd organisations that received a letter have not responded to requests to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name.
    That's not news at all. No businessman in his right mind agrees to any legal terms without running it past his lawyers first. A business of any size at all has a legal department whose main job is reviewing documents to be sure they aren't booby-trapped.

    The question you have to ask is what benefit these people see from agreeing to LMI's terms vs. the cost of not doing so. If they don't think they're doing anything that can get them sued YET, they might be afraid that entering into any discussion at all could entangle them so that they could.

    We all saw what OSDL's reaction was to MS's attempt to get them to agree to something. Better to remain silent than to let your words be used against you.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  49. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! by MandMPrankster · · Score: 1

    What a hoot! All the open source hippies debating the fine points of trademark and copyright and pining for the good ole days when everything was free, but nothing worked! LOL--you guys crack me up.

  50. I say we just call it the GNU operating system by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 1

    Wow, I bet Stallman be really happy then :-)

    --

    "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
    -Thucydides

  51. Re:Apparently, yes. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Well, he does make it clear that he's one of the wankers.

    Then he goes into a long discussion of what trademarks are, framing his position as "protecting" people who use "Linux" in their name from "collisions". And implicitly referencing the value of trademark in ensuring that things called "Linux" really are "Linux", and not just, say, Windows3.1 GPL'd as "Microsoft OpenLinux 4.1".

    But that all reads as rationalization for LMI charging license fees in Torvalds' name. Because he specifically addresses the license fee question:

    'So to answer a particular question that came up here on Linux-kernel:
    "Does the linuxjournal.com pay $5000?".

    First off, I don't know where the $5000 came from - it's different for
    different classes of people. Secondly, LinuxJournal was one of the companies that raised the money to get the "Linux" trademark in the first place! As a result, they don't pay a red cent, because they had been part of protecting the name in the first place. And yes, they paid real lawyers to do so. Their sublicense got "grandfathered in".
    Finally, just to make it clear: not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has to far historically always lost money on it. That's not a way to sustain a trademark, so they're trying to at least become self-sufficient, but so far I can tell that lawyers fees to _give_ that protection that commercial companies want have been higher than the license fees. Even pro bono lawyers chanrge for the time of their costs and paralegals etc.    "

    He first disclaims the (essence of the controversy) $5K fee, sidestepping it. Then he softpedals on the basis for those fees: people they like (for good reasons, maybe) don't pay. Others have to pay, but that pays for the money invested in the trademark operation. That operation has lost money, and Torvalds doesn't get any of it (so far). Those are all perfectly valid reasons, and within Torvalds' rights.

    But it's not the best way to fund the trademark protection of legitimate deployers that he spent so much time detailing in his note. A better way would be to raise the $50K, that LMI has apparently raised from the 9+ Australian respondents to their C&D letter, from really big users of the Linux trademark - like IBM Australia, or Red Hat Australia. Because all of those little companies are surrounded by many more little companies, which are adversely affected by inhibition in marketing their products as "Linux". Disproportionate payment by big, multinational corps betting their global business on the growth of the Linux market is a subsidy by them to their industry. But such a small fee is a tiny drop in the bucket of the marketing dollars they're spending for exactly that gain. The trademark operation should cost $100K per year, even if there's an (adequately low-grade) lawyer working on it most of the time.

    But that's clearly not how this operation works. This is just like any other trademark licensing operation. It's designed to develop a market for the licenses, to operate at a profit. That's Torvalds' privilege - even if he does so, he's delivered so much value to the industry that trademark fees (or enforcing and witholding the licenses) doesn't eclipse his heroic status (at least from the past). But it is at odds with the best strategy for promoting a Linux industry. And it's disingenous for Torvalds to claim the purpose and effects are as simple and limited as he does. If some of that license money starts returning to Torvalds' pockets, to compensate his time in helping run the trademark operation or somesuch justification, we'll see that Linux is a commercial brand, no different from a GM car. It remains to be seen how long Torvalds takes to own up to those typical capitalist operations, and how long he keeps up the facade that he's just protecting the rest of the community, at his expense.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  52. A start. by torrents · · Score: 1

    1/9 isn't highly impressive but getting the lawyers out there flexing their muscles helps to protect them from people releasing anything and calling it "Linux". What if Microsoft funded a startup that created a very poor distro, called it "Linux 2006" and then ran benchmarks against it that showed how far superior XP was to "Linux". It may seem a little outlandish but these are the types of things that can be avoided if you protect your trademark... I don't think any Linux fans want to see the word become a generic term for any free(ish) OS.

    --
    Get your torrents...
  53. huh? by kmmatthews · · Score: 1

    You're a roll, eh?

    --
    feh. stuff.
  54. MOD PARENT UP!!! by jistanidiot · · Score: 1

    Finally someone sees the tuth. Linus is just spaming companies, hoping they'll fall for this scam.

    It is time we dump the "Linux" name and just got it somethign like "The *nix OS" or something.

  55. Re:Apparently, yes. by cranos · · Score: 1

    Ah tin foil hat time! News Flah Linus Torvalds rejects "damn hippie communism", takes "Evil Facist Capitalism".

    Here is the situation, a couple of years ago a company in Adelaide, South Australia trademarked the word Linux and started to demand license fees from anyone else who used the word linux. Linux Australia applied to have the trademark disallowed and won. Now the Linux Mark Institute with the assistance of Linux Australia are attempting to get Linux trademarked and hand the trademark over to Linus.

    We are not going to breaking down the door of every shop that sells linux and demanding $5,000.00, that is reserved for those companies that earn a crap load every year. Yes companies such as Redhat and LinuxJournal have special rights with regards to Linux, this is because they were prepared to pony up the dough and lawyers to get the Linux name trademarked in the first place.

    Yes the initial mail out was handled badly, however we are not trying to gouge everyone and lay the loot at the feet of our holy master okay?

  56. Re:Apparently, yes. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Huh? Who's "we"? You work for LMI, for Malcolm? If so, of course you're anxious to charge whatever you can - it's your bread and butter. And you're putting the best spin on it you can. Like painting a false dichtomy of "damn hippie communism" vs "Evil Fascist Capitalism". There's no point discussing this with you if that's how you cast my comments, which described neither of those extremes.

    Your strawman, excluded middle fallacy just digs deeper the hole you claim was just a "badly handled initial email". It certainly makes you look like you know nothing else but forced propaganda, the kind that shows up in Cease & Desist letters backed by nothing but opportunistic money grabs.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  57. It's a sign of the times by Dogmatron · · Score: 1

    Don't worry man-- you can still pay for Windows! Not sure about the "working" part though.

  58. Re:Apparently, yes. by cranos · · Score: 1

    I am connected with Linux Australia - the community organisation working with LMI - and I do know a bit about what is going on.

    You are welcome to read whatever you like into this process, however before you go shooting your mouth off you should read through this.

  59. Re:Apparently, yes. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    That link adds nothing to the discussion. We already know the supposed reasons. If you read DocRuby's posts you will see that he is claiming that is a ruse that is really just a money grab by the lawyers.

  60. Re:Apparently, yes. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Hah. That link, a FAQ from the lawyer getting paid to coerce the cash from C&D targets, was already thrown into a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago by another LMI apologist. Who's probably also on the Linux trademark gravy train, though they didn't come so close to admitting it.

    Your guys have a simple plan. It's no different than the plan used by thousands of others capitalizing on pure IP like trademarks. It's not even an unethical plan. What is unethical is the lies about how this is "just to protect the community", or "not a power grab", or "not a money grab". When it is all of those things, not just the ones you want us to believe. You want to keep the community's trust, but you know that taxing it will reduce that close identification. So you try to do both, covering it with spin and euphamism.

    Before you go shooting your mouth off, you should consider that we're not as dumb as your contempt for us as cattle on which to feed would have us. Because now you've gone and shot off your mouth - into your foot. Better make sure that you're getting a decent cut from the proceeds, because otherwise you've sold your integrity cheap.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  61. Re:Apparently, yes. by cranos · · Score: 1

    This is the point I'm trying to make, this is NOT a money grab. This is a defensive effort to protect the Linux name against those who would abuse it. In Australia we have already had one company try and grab the mark for itself and that is what we are trying to protect against.

  62. Re:Apparently, yes. by cranos · · Score: 1

    What gravy? LMI runs at a loss, nobody gets a cut and the trademark remains the property of one Linus Torvalds. If you want to accuse people of fraud and graft, then please present objective evidence so that people may judge.

  63. Re:Apparently, yes. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Forgive us for being suspicious, but you have already admitted working with LMI, which means the lawyers involved. I think you guys are doing a huge amount of harm myself, but I'm not involved with Linux so it doesn't affect me. I'm just amused because you can see how now that money is being made with Linux the lawyers start sniffing around.

  64. Re:Apparently, yes. by cranos · · Score: 1

    Exactly what harm do you think we're doing? The Linux trademark has been around in the states for several years now and it hasn't caused any issues, what makes trade marking it in Australia any different?