Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian Questions Trademark Policy

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the precautionary-measures dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The OSS/developer community at large is paying more attention to the trademark issue, especially since Linus Torvalds bid to trademark the name 'Linux' in Australia failed recently. Branden Robinson, Debian's project leader, says the current trademark policy needs updating to ensure it has the appropriate level of protection against legal challenges. Robinson said there are various questions that project members must address when deciding how to change the policy. These include whether Debian Linux should have a trademark at all, and whether the trademark can be used to penalize those who 'prey upon' the community."

82 comments

  1. Trademark by nudeatom · · Score: 2

    Does anyone have an objection to Linus holding the trademark to the "Linux"? If so why? Im not a lawyer and this IP stuff quite frankly goes over my head.

    --
    Yeah right, Like Im gonna write a sig.
    1. Re:Trademark by majjj · · Score: 2, Informative

      " Intellectual Property Australia said the word "Linux" was not distinctive enough to be trademarked and was similar to other trademarks owned locally. " This is the reason given in the article... dunno what it means.. someone plzz elaborate -- majjj

    2. Re:Trademark by nudeatom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I dont want to start a flamewar, but surely "Linux" is more distinctive than "Windows", "Apple", "McDonalds" etc etc

      --
      Yeah right, Like Im gonna write a sig.
    3. Re:Trademark by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, I was thinking the same thing. There was no word "Linux" before, whereas all of your other examples plus countless more trademarks are very common words.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    4. Re:Trademark by nudeatom · · Score: 1

      It would'nt have anything to do with the amount of money you have would it?

      --
      Yeah right, Like Im gonna write a sig.
    5. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. No it's not. This is where the double edged sword of GPL in the business world rears its head. Linux was found to not be distinctive because there are already so many companies that use the mark freely. How many companies were called "Apple Computers" before they got the trademark? How many "Microsoft Windows" were there? Compare that with how many companies used the word "Linux" in their product names before the Australian application. Red Hat, Debian, Suse, Mandriva... the list goes on. There are so many distributions and have been for so long that coming in only now to try and protect the mark is a waste of time and money.

      It puts the Linux world in a Catch 22. Either you argue that the mark is valid after over a decade of free use by anyone, thereby saying that you would support submarine litigation and/or licensing of the Linux name to companies that were previously using it, or you admit that the mark is invalid and nobody has the right to control it. There is no in-between on the issue.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with how common the word is. What matters is the common application. Trying to get a trademark on the word "computer" when you're in the PC business won't fly. If you're naming a snack food "computer", that's a different thing entirely.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    7. Re:Trademark by thebdj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the most important reason that Linus got rejected and surprisingly hasn't gotten rejected more places is because he has quite frankly waited to long. When a term becomes generic it is sort of hard to hold a Trademark over anyone and make a big fuss about it. It may vary by different countries but the same term can be trademarked multiple times so long as they are not crossing field, it is also important to rememble that symbols can be trademark if they are shown to be in someway unique.

      Seriously, I think that the term Linux has been in use so long that it has become a fairly generic term. While protection of the name may be somewhat important, the fact that it is in use and fairly generic would prevent others from trademarking it, where it isn't trademarked (or should at least).

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    8. Re:Trademark by nudeatom · · Score: 1

      So why the whole "WWF" business. bulky guys grunting is a completly seperate area from cute wildlife saving. Why did they have a barney?

      --
      Yeah right, Like Im gonna write a sig.
    9. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 0

      That was precisely the findings of the Australian court. After reviewing the materials that the Australian LUG's lawyer provided, the stuff that was supposed to show the trademark request was valid, the judge determined that there were already far too many uses of the word "Linux" in general computing use already for anyone to make a claim at this time.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    10. Re:Trademark by richlv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, it's not only "Microsoft Windows" - it is plain windows that is considered an infrigmns@#&%@. whatever that word is spelled :)

      remember lindows ?

      i really believe that passing around trademarks for common words is wrong and that's exactly what's happening.

      --
      Rich
    11. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 1, Informative

      The wrestling WWF was operating as the "WWF" with permission from the other WWF (World Wildlife Fund). The animal WWF got pissed over the way the wrestling WWF was using the WWF trademark and decided to revoke that permission.

      Here's a link to a story about it.

      Note that Apple Computers operates under a similar deal with Apple Records, and ran into some trouble with them over starting up iTunes.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    12. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 1, Informative

      Incorrect. If the Lindows case had gone to court, MS would most likely have lost their mark on the word "Windows", but not on "Microsoft Windows". But they didn't let that happen. They paid Lindows $20 million if they agreed to a name change, which they did.

      The case never made it to trial.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    13. Re:Trademark by Haeleth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously, I think that the term Linux has been in use so long that it has become a fairly generic term. While protection of the name may be somewhat important, the fact that it is in use and fairly generic would prevent others from trademarking it, where it isn't trademarked (or should at least).

      With due respect, you clearly don't have the faintest clue what "generic" means.

      Generic is when you use something that might be a trademark to refer to anything vaguely similar. For example, in Britain it's common to use the word "hoover" to refer to a vacuum cleaner of any brand: you have Hoover hoovers and Dyson hoovers. What that means is that "hoover" is becoming generic, and soon it might get to the point where Dyson could actually describe what they were making as hoovers, and Hoover wouldn't be able to sue them for it.

      Likewise, Xerox have had to go to tremendous efforts to protect their trademark: if you stopped talking about copiers and started talking about xeroxes (of any brand), then the Xerox mark would have become generic. But we don't, we talk about copiers: so Xerox is not generic these days.

      Now, is Linux generic? Of course it isn't! When you talk about Linux, you are talking about an operating system based on the Linux kernel. You wouldn't say "Microsoft Windows is a popular linux", or talk about the "FreeBSD linux", or say "OS X is based on the Mach micro-linux", because the generic term is "operating system" or "kernel", and "Linux" is the unique name for a particular kernel used to power a particular set of operating systems.

      Sorry, but the Australians called it wrong this time. There may well be valid arguments against a Linux trademark, but genericity ain't one of them.

    14. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Before anyone attacks me with a +3 Zealot Sword, I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the reason this is a GPL issue is because of the openness with which anyone can use anything under the GPL. Unless you secure your trademarks up front, you risk using them due to your mark becoming generic. How many different distributions have used "Linux" in their name in the past 10+ years?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    15. Re:Trademark by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, companies have to be pretty diligent. Xerox people used to get their knickers in a twist when someone used 'xerox' as a verb, and thier sales and technical people were required to correct you -- you weren't xeroxing something, you were photocopying it. See also: Band-Aid brand adhesive strips, which is awkward but necessary as band-aid became common vernacular for any type of bandage.

      It's not necessarily cut and dried with Linux. It has become so widespread in so many flavors, distributions, functions and systems, that it really has taken on some generic qualities. Technically minded folks understand the difference between the kernel and the rest, but most, if not all, of the companies selling services and products for Linux do not make that distinction.

    16. Re:Trademark by black+mariah · · Score: 1
      When you talk about Linux, you are talking about an operating system based on the Linux kernel.
      WHICH ONE?
      You wouldn't say "Microsoft Windows is a popular linux", or talk about the "FreeBSD linux", or say "OS X is based on the Mach micro-linux", because the generic term is "operating system" or "kernel", and "Linux" is the unique name for a particular kernel used to power a particular set of operating systems.
      Tell that to all the distributions that use "Linux" in their name. It's not "Red Hat Enterprise Operating System Based on the Linux Kernel". It isn't "Mandriva Software to Operate a Computer With the Linux Kernel as its Base". It's "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" and "Mandriva Linux".

      Like it or not, "Linux" has come to refer GENERICALLY to an operating system with the Linux kernel as its core. Your argument does nothing but affirm that the Australian court's decision was CORRECT.
      When you talk about Linux, you are talking about an operating system based on the Linux kernel.
      Of which there are HUNDREDS, many operating with the word "Linux" in their name, entirely unabated, for over a decade. Let's change the target a little. Say Xerox had let other companies use the word "Xerox" in all of their advertisements, even in the company names, for over a decade without even applying for a trademark. Then all of a sudden they decide they want that trademark and apply for it. Well, you have "Dave's Xerox Company", "Bob's Xerox Emporium", "Epson Xeroxes", "Lexmark Xeroxes", "Hewlett-Packed Xeroxes", and so on. It is the SAME EXACT SITUATION with Linux, whether you like it or not.
      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    17. Re:Trademark by thuh+Freak · · Score: 1

      well, linux obviously doesn't refer to a generic operating system (especially since its just a kernel ;)). but, i and many others refer to any non-specific distribution as Linux. Gentoo Linux, Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, My Linux, Your Linux. i call em all 'Linux' distros. my buddy has federa, and i have gentoo; we both have 'Linux'. i'm not at all familiar with the case in aussie-land, but maybe thats the genericness of the name.

      --
      I wish that I was a catfish.
    18. Re:Trademark by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Xerox people used to get their knickers in a twist when someone used 'xerox' as a verb, and thier sales and technical people were required to correct you -- you weren't xeroxing something, you were photocopying it.
       
      Xerox's legal department used to send (nicely worded, non-threatening) letters to authors who referred to "Xeroxing something" in their novels or short stories, requesting that they recognize that the wording be changed to copying with a Xerox(r) brand machine.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    19. Re:TradeMark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does Debian need trademark? No.

      See this site.
      They do NOT offer any contribution or comments to community and do NOT have trademark right,
      but they say "debian" for their company name.

    20. Re:TradeMark by MrCopilot · · Score: 1

      This Harms Debian How?

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    21. Re:TradeMark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some people confuse. a freeware (not free software) auther claims
      mailing list in Debian about debian.co.jp service.
      (http://lists.debian.org/debian-japanese/2005/09/m sg00012.html)

      and some people (hosting service) ask about debian.co.jp service,
      I've tired to answer to thats question...

      and I don't want them to steal efforts and results that made by
      Debian guys in Japan. It affects debian guys motivations, I think.

  2. Has it happened yet? by Crixus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have ANY of these important linux questions been answered in a court yet? i.e. How enforcable is the GPL, and IS "linux" a trademark?

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
    1. Re:Has it happened yet? by mr_tenor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the GPL is "not enforcable", whatever that means, then you are using my copyrighted code without a licence and I sue you :)

    2. Re:Has it happened yet? by m50d · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How enforcable is the GPL

      So enforcable no-one's dared challenge it. There have been plenty of companies with the motivation to go up against it if they thought they stood a reasonable chance of winning, and none of them have tried.

      and IS "linux" a trademark

      In some countries, yes, definitely, Linus only got the trademark after a legal battle when someone else trademarked it. However, in Australia it isn't. It just depends on local laws.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Has it happened yet? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or your code is declared Public Domain and everyone gets to use it with no license. Really, it could go either way. Since the intent of the GPL is to allow people to freely use your code, then a judge might see it as identical to PD.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    4. Re:Has it happened yet? by rm69990 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I very highly doubt that. Copyright law allows for a balance of how works are distributed. Copyright law by default is very restrictive. The whole point of copyright licenses is to loosen those restrictions. The authors of GPL'd code have essentially said "I own the copyright to this code. I own the exclusive right to this code. HOWEVER, I will allow you to do a, b, c, d and e as long as you abide by f, g, h and i.

      There is absolutely NOTHING in case law to support the fact that if you loosen your restrictions too much you lose your copyright. Of course, if there are any laws like this or caselaw like this and you would like to prove me wrong, please do so.

      To say that if a license is found to be invalid that the code it covers would go into the public domain is ridiculous. You have obviously been listening to SCO's and Microsoft's lawyers a little too much. If Microsoft's Shared Source license is found to be invalid, will Windows be put in the public domain? If so, please inform them, as obviously them nor I are aware of any clause or case law which would support your theory.

      If anything, BSD licensed code would go first, not the GPL. When Novell/USL sued the University of California over BSD and later faced a possible copyright infringement suit for not complying with the BSD license (which is way, way, way more permissive than the GPL), they quickly settled and even paid the University's legal fees. You should inform them that they were in-fact wrong about copyright laws work, and that that code is in-fact public domain.

    5. Re:Has it happened yet? by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or your code is declared Public Domain and everyone gets to use it with no license.

      This was one of SCO's arguments. Which dosn't actually appear to have any standing in either statute or case law anywhere on the planet. If a court were to rule a distribution licence "invalid" then the standard provisions of copyright apply. Thus it would be pointless for any party to even bring a suit to attempt to do this, they'd have nothing to gain.

      Really, it could go either way. Since the intent of the GPL is to allow people to freely use your code, then a judge might see it as identical to PD.

      Whilst a judge may have the power to reassign copyrights. Between parties in a lawsuit they most likely do not have the power to destroy them.

    6. Re:Has it happened yet? by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I very highly doubt that. Copyright law allows for a balance of how works are distributed. Copyright law by default is very restrictive. The whole point of copyright licenses is to loosen those restrictions.

      Copyright says that you need the permission of the copyright holder in order to make and distribute copies.

      The authors of GPL'd code have essentially said "I own the copyright to this code. I own the exclusive right to this code. HOWEVER, I will allow you to do a, b, c, d and e as long as you abide by f, g, h and i.

      Having a published licence is an advantage to third parties, since they know what terms and conditions the copyright holder will grant permission to copy and distribute. Rather than having to negotiate permission with the copyright holder. It is also an advantage to the copyright holders, since they do not have to negotiate terms and conditions with every third party who might want to make and distribute copies of their work(s).
      Copyright law gives copyright holders a great deal of choice as to terms and conditions. (Including using an already existing set of terms and conditions, such as the GPL.) About the only exception would be if they required some illegal action as a condition.

      To say that if a license is found to be invalid that the code it covers would go into the public domain is ridiculous. You have obviously been listening to SCO's and Microsoft's lawyers a little too much.

      In some cases SCO's argument appears to be that simply by their disagreeing with a licence the work is in the Public Domain.

  3. Why shouldn't they trademark their works? by Pants75 · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't they trademark their works? Why did Linus fail to trademark Linux?

    1. Re:Why shouldn't they trademark their works? by mr_tenor · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are confused. trademark is a monopoly claimed over the usage of a label (eg - the name "Debian") so that people can't pretend to be you or otherwise create confusion or damage your reputation.

    2. Re:Why shouldn't they trademark their works? by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      You don't trademark a work, you trademark a name. If Linus said "You can't use the name Linux" you could simply call the system Red Hat Freeax (Linus' original thought for the name of Linux)...although that would sound stupid.

  4. See Also... by Mike+Connell · · Score: 4, Informative

    The logo these guys (still) have elektrostore.se

    some debian-legal discussion

    --
    Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
    1. Re:See Also... by mikael_j · · Score: 1
      Actually, I think it's not as much copyright infringement as "both made a spiral in Illustrator and used the same stock brush", I've used that brush in a logo but mine was slightly more detailed than just a spiral so it didn't look just like the debian logo..

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:See Also... by linhux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, if you read the mail (and you seem to know Swedish, so you could), you'll see that the poster claims that the logo in question is identified as a rotated Debian logo even when compared pixel-by-pixel. Simply using the same Illustrator brush shouldn't produce that kind of similarity, should it?

    3. Re:See Also... by Saven+Marek · · Score: 4, Funny

      That begs then to ask the question why is the debian logo doing in Illustrator as a stock brush? how long has it been there?

      Can we petition Illustrator to have this removed. Even if we don't have the legal trademark over it I'm sure the bad publicity for Adobe infringing on IP of Free/Open Source Software would persuade them.

      Whats that site again that lets you run petitions?

    4. Re:See Also... by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the poster claims that the logo in question is identified as a rotated Debian logo even when compared pixel-by-pixel. Simply using the same Illustrator brush shouldn't produce that kind of similarity, should it?

      Illustrator has the facility to draw spirals based on a set of mathematical criteria. The default spiral settings plus the default brush used also makes the exact same debian logo. There wasn't much creativity put into making that specific debian spiral.

      A free operating system logo made on a non-free graphics app running on a non free operating system, created with non-free default settings and a non-free font used throughout debian. That's just wrong.

      --
      RST
    5. Re:See Also... by black+mariah · · Score: 0
      A free operating system logo made on a non-free graphics app running on a non free operating system, created with non-free default settings and a non-free font used throughout debian. That's just wrong.
      But you have to admit... it makes you smirk.
      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:See Also... by mjg59 · · Score: 1
      It's not necessarily copyright infringement, but it may be trademark infringement if

      (a) Debian held a European trademark before Elektrostore started using that logo, and
      (b) A judge could be convinced that the usage is confusing

      In this case I doubt that there's any real chance that people could be confused into thinking that Elektrostore are somehow endorsed by or associated with Debian, so it probably wouldn't be a problem for them.

    7. Re:See Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, I guess that they stole it from the Sega Dreamcast.

  5. Responsibility by Kawahee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not up to the open source community to look after their own trademarks and stuff like that. There should already be initiatives for non-for-profit or (cyber)community-minded groups like the OSS community to get a hold of trademarks for non-for-profit reasons. I live in Australia, and I think we've got fair(ish) copyright laws, but not something like this. Does anyone live in a country that has this sort of system/law?

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    1. Re:Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your country has recently rejected Linus Torvalds' Linux trademark claims.

    2. Re:Responsibility by m50d · · Score: 1
      It's not up to the open source community to look after their own trademarks and stuff like that.

      Yeah, and other people should hold their copyrights for them too.

      If anyone has your trademark it should be you. Anything else is asking for trouble.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Responsibility by mjg59 · · Score: 1
      If anyone has your trademark it should be you. Anything else is asking for trouble.

      Holding trademarks tends to require you to be a legal entity. Your choices are pretty much:
      • Register it as an individual. This can be a problem if you get run over by a bus, or something.
      • Form a non-profit or charitable organisation. Legal overhead, depending on where you are. You may need to submit proper accounts and the like.
      • Get an organisation like SPI to hold the trademarks on your behalf.
  6. Who preys upon the Debian community... by SimonShine · · Score: 1

    ...besides perhaps other Operating System communities?

    Doesn't the need for opposing standards like patents and trademarks become larger as the community grows in size, or do we accept that very large corporations have a natural, excusable reason to protect their name and value through legal bondage? I think it's bull.

    --
    Take off every 'ZIG' !!
  7. Should it have a TM? Yes. by panurge · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't regard this as even a question that should need asking. If it isn't already, the name Debian should be a trademark. And if it can't be on its own, then they should get in touch with Linus, agree to recognise one another's marks, and trademark Debian Linux as a TM.

    In the meantime, signal your intentions by updating every internal and external document you can find to read Debian(TM). Same goes for Ubuntu.

    Remember: a trademark protects the name, not the content. Trademarking the name of a distro does not attempt to take away or add anything to the copyright or software licences of any component. It just prevents evil corporate bastard or pakistani virus spreader from calling his CD of spyware, viruses and trojans "Debian".

    Is there any trademark attorney out there who would help these people pro bono or at reduced rate? If there is an appeal, I would certainly contribute to the filing costs.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Should it have a TM? Yes. by mjg59 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Debian already has a trademark. In the US, it's held by Software in the Public Interest on behalf of Debian. Every page on the Debian website states this in the footer.

  8. why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother with tradmarks at all.
    Nobody who is worth a damn is going to get confused about what linux is or where it comes from, especially after 2 minutes of reasurch. How about instead of assuming people are stupid inforcing tradmarks, we assume they're smart, and just let the chips fall were they may.

    1. Re:why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there was an asshole who registered Linux and started charging companies who used this name in their products. That's what made Linus take legal action to protect his brainchild.

    2. Re:why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Except there was an asshole who registered Linux and started charging companies who used this name in their products. That's what made Linus take legal action to protect his brainchild.
      You seem to imply the guy was just abusing the name to make some quick cash - I don't recall this happening. Certainly if you are referring to the case of Linux Australia Inc. ( Sydney Morning Herald ) then it was a lawyer working for the organisation that handles Linux Mark Institute's affairs in Oz and the payment was to have been to LMI (not to the lawyer or Linux Australia). With the recent Australian court ruling on the trademark this may be unenforceable (IANAL though). I was under the impression that the attempted registration was in case somebody tried to do what you say not because somebody actually did it.
    3. Re:why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, he was referring to the person who trademarked "Linux" in the nineties in the US. That person was into it for the money.

  9. Robinson's full post by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's Project Leader Branden's Robinson's full (much longer) comments on the trademark issue.

    His main point seems to be that trademarks can lead to forking, whether it be forced by the trademark holder or voluntary, and that these trademark forks can lead to confusion (Why are these forked version unofficial? Is it really the same product? Which is the 'best' version?), inefficiency (harder to share code between forks) and fragmentation of the open-source community. Moreover, the implicit threat of trademarks - play by our rules or lose the name - seems at odds with the ethos of freedom to make changes that at the core of the free software movement.

    He ends with three main questions that Debian will have to resolve:
    * Why even have a trademark? What protections does it give that are useful for Debian? How do these protections different internationally, within dozens of different national jurisdictions?

    * What is the approval process for using the Debian trademark? Should some groups get automatic approval, or should Debian leverage its trademark to compel vendors to contact Debian?

    * Can we apply the Copyleft principle to trademark? That is, how can we turn trademark on its head and make it a tool to promote the open and free use of Debian and other projects instead of a device to restrict the rights of others?

    1. Re:Robinson's full post by black+mariah · · Score: 1
      All of those questions reek of the junior high mentality, which Debian is an unrivaled breeder of.
      Why even have a trademark?
      "Introducing Debian Windows..." "SCO has announced 'Debian SCO' for x86 systems..." "Red Hat Enterprise Debian" "Bob's Distribution of Debian That Comes With Free Kiddie Porn and Marijuana" Extreme examples, but you get the point.
      What is the approval process for using the Debian trademark? Should some groups get automatic approval, or should Debian leverage its trademark to compel vendors to contact Debian?
      It seems pretty fucking simple. Everything else Debian is put to a vote... why not this? "No to Microsoft and SCO, yes to Bob as long as he removes the kiddie porn and doubles the weed."
      Can we apply the Copyleft principle to trademark? That is, how can we turn trademark on its head and make it a tool to promote the open and free use of Debian and other projects instead of a device to restrict the rights of others?
      The real question is... DO YOU NEED TO? The answer is "Fuck no." Trademarks are distinct from copyright and patent law in that you must defend your marks... but you don't have to defend them from EVERYONE. If company A and B use the name Debian, that doesn't mean you have to let company C do the same, even if you never gave A and B permission to use them. Situations like that have come up many times in court, and the mark holder usually prevails.
      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  10. mo3 down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    in time. For all in a head spinning visions going in eternity...Romeo short of a miracle RAM) for about 20 eulogies to BSD's Slashdotw 'BSD is = 1400 NetBSD deliver. Some of

  11. They don't have an option... by Whafro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regarding the notion that Debian might not want to "have a trademark at all," they really don't have any choice, strictly speaking.

    Trademarks aren't trademarks simply because they've been successfully registered. They're trademarks anyway, but registration affords some ADDITIONAL protections, beyond what a non-registered trademark gets.

    Any mark that's used in commerce is automatically given trademark rights and protections under common law in almost every western nation, including the US and Australia.

    The real issue in this case is that trademark protections are weakened when they are not protected by the owner of the mark. So if Debian lets anyone use "DEBIAN" for commercial purposes whenever they like, it will be hard for them to then go and protect that mark in the future.

    Hell, depending on the examiner, it may already be unregisterable due to lack of protection.

    1. Re:They don't have an option... by Overfiend · · Score: 1

      Regarding the notion that Debian might not want to "have a trademark at all," they really don't have any choice, strictly speaking.

      Of course Debian has a choice. Our mark is in fact registered with the USPTO, but we could always deliberately choose not to exercise our privileges under registration or common-law trademark. I.e., we can pretend there's no such thing as trademark law for us and let the chips fall where they may. We may reach a consensus that that's not a wise option, but it remains one nonethless. Many small businesses in the U.S. don't fool take effectively this approach, particularly if the name of their firm is mundane (think "Bob Smith's Tax Service").

      --
      Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
  12. No , the submission whas too simple. by Moulinneuf · · Score: -1


    No what happened is the Lawyer tought it would be an open shut case and did not deliver enough paper
    and documents to support his claim :

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/shared/images/news/linux/l inux_tm.pdf

    - The main reason the Trademark registration whas refused for now is that the lawyer did not offer enough proof he whas working for Linus Thorvalds.

    - The second is an already registered Linux trademarked product : Linuxworld magazine.

    The Government employee for once actually did his job properly.

    --
    I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
  13. Too Late... by benjamindees · · Score: -1, Troll

    It just prevents evil corporate bastard or pakistani virus spreader from calling his CD of spyware, viruses and trojans "Debian".

    It's way too late for this. It's been discussed half-heartedly for ages. I guess at one point they managed to get Trusted Debian to change their name, but then Bruce Perens immediately backpedaled with his "fair to all businesses" policy.

    If Debian thinks they can take the route that Mozilla has, in trying to prevent others from releasing improved/modified versions of their software as "Debian", then they must be joking. In fact, ironically, Debian doesn't even abide by Mozilla's trademark policy. It's been suggested that it's not even possible for them to.

    For Brandon, especially, to be pushing for this is completely ridiculous, since his employer does exactly what he's talking about preventing, by releasing Progeny Debian.

    There's no "revising" needed. There is no trademark. Their original trademark "policy" along with whatever trademark they had has not been defended. It's been years since anybody even thought about it. And most who have tried, have come to the conclusion that no policy is better than any. It's too late.

    Besides, everyone sees this for what it really is. Now that there is commercial value in Linux, and in Debian, everybody wants to have their hands in the pie. A few monied interests are working to make "Free" software a little less free, in the guise of "just protecting the community from abuse".

    Well, I ask, what is this abuse exactly? Is it RedHat making a name for Linux? Is it IBM putting Linux in SuperBowl ads? Is it small groups like Trusted Debian taking what they thought was "Free" and improving it? Is it thousands of web hosters and developers using OSS to make a living, and guaranteeing that Free Software dominates at least one market instead of withering from non-use? Is it admins and small support companies working to put Linux and Debian on desktops against all odds? Are these the people who need to dot their "i's", cross their "t's", and watch their backs, lest some competitor gain control of the Linux trademarks and sue them into poverty?

    When Bruce started his little group of people to support Debian, all hell broke loose. A third of the developers went with Bruce to carry on the tradition of separating business from OSS, a third jumped on board with Ubuntu, and the other third just sat around expecting money to fall into their laps.

    Well, I have news for those developers: money isn't going to fall into your laps. Not from suing the people making money from Linux, not from extorting them, and not from threatening them with ridiculous license changes. If you want a job supporting Debian, developing OSS programs, or even selling Linux, they are out there. Go get one. Or, you can always do what thousands before you have done, make your own. Just don't sit in your house crying about "abuse", and expecting someone to bring money to your doorstep.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Too Late... by mjg59 · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I agree with a lot of what you're saying:

      I guess at one point they managed to get Trusted Debian to change their name, but then Bruce Perens immediately backpedaled with his "fair to all businesses" policy.

      You've got the order very wrong there. The Trusted Debian thing happened in 2003, whereas Bruce's policy was announced in 1998.

      When Bruce started his little group of people to support Debian, all hell broke loose. A third of the developers went with Bruce to carry on the tradition of separating business from OSS, a third jumped on board with Ubuntu, and the other third just sat around expecting money to fall into their laps.

      What little group? The last Debian-related thing Bruce was involved in was Userlinux, which has been a miserable failure. Approximately no Debian developers were involved. A small number of Debian developers (including myself) have some level of involvement in Ubuntu. I don't think we expect to make money out of it, and it doesn't diminish my involvement in Debian. If anyone got involved in Debian in the hope of making money, then they're sadly deluded and I don't seem to have met them yet.

    2. Re:Too Late... by swillden · · Score: 1

      If Debian thinks they can take the route that Mozilla has, in trying to prevent others from releasing improved/modified versions of their software as "Debian", then they must be joking.

      Where did you get that idea from? The article doesn't say that.

      For Brandon, especially, to be pushing for this is completely ridiculous, since his employer does exactly what he's talking about preventing, by releasing Progeny Debian

      Your statement only makes sense if your unsupported assumption is accurate. If Brandon's actions disagree with what you assume to be his intent, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption?

      If you have information about Brandon's intent that is not present in the article, perhaps you should present it. If not, why the random attack?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Too Late... by Cyn · · Score: 1

      Debian does abide by Mozillas trademark policy. The problem, was that Mozillas policy was to not expect Linux distributors to be covered by the general trademark policy, http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/00834 7.html - but Debians policy is that everything should be freely redistributal and modified - thus Debians Mozilla package couldn't have a non-general trademark policy and still abide by Debians guidelines.

      All that aside, I believe what they settled on that they needed to do was make sure all references said "Debian Firefox" or equivalent - instead of "Mozilla Firefox" - just so it's clear that it's not the core version straight from Mozilla. The intention was to remove the Mozilla name from sight - which in the long run seems somewhat perplexing for brand recognition, but to each their own in the pursuit to protect themselves.

      --
      cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
    4. Re:Too Late... by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Hewlett Packard did. HP has shipped large Itanium servers to Telecommunications customers running customized Debian. HP also threw a lot of weight behind the port of Debian to the Itanium, which resulted in Debian Woody being the first distro to support Itanium. There is also a law that states that if you release benchmarks of a product, the product then has to be released within 6 months (in the US). I heard this directly from an HP representative. Because Red Hat and SUSE were taking so long to support Itanium, Debian was used for a lot of the earlier benchmarks of HP Itanium systems.

    5. Re:Too Late... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Where did you get that idea from? The article doesn't say that.

      It seems to be all the rage nowadays. And, yeah, the article was quite vague. Admittedly, I'm a little touchy about it. It was a rant, what can I say?

      why the random attack?

      Warning shot :)

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    6. Re:Too Late... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      What little group?

      Yeah I'm talking about UserLinux. Admittedly, it's been a year since I'd looked at them. But, you have to admit, there was something to it at one time. Lots of Debian people were pissed that anyone would dare to build a distro on top of Debian without hiring them outright. UserLinux was ridiculed from the very beginning, because Bruce talked about "marketing" and "support" rather than "developing" and "collecting fees". The project was designed to extend Debian, rather than replace it. Ironically, it seems many Debian devs would have been less critical of a replacement. And the Ubuntu zealotry that followed was largely a response to this. Of course, that's just my perspective.

      If anyone got involved in Debian in the hope of making money, then they're sadly deluded

      Come on, now. Surely most Debian devs make money on Linux one way or another?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  14. OT: Change summary link text colour! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link text is black. The rest of the summary text is also black. I have link underlining turned off. How am I supposed to find the link?

  15. It's never going to happen (Linux Trademark) by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IT's too late, the horse has already bolted, if only people would have listend to RMS and called their distributions GNU-Linux Linus may still have had a chance.
    The reason you can't trademark Linux is because well, there's Redhat Linux (That's GNU-Linux + lots of other stuff), and Linux programming 2nd edition (and it's not about kernel programming) and a quick google for linux turns up

    Linux
    www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Read in-depth 3rd party performance analysis of Linux & Windows.

    as second on the list!!, and that's not about the Linux kernel either.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  16. Linux isn't a quality stamp by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1
    Does anyone have an objection to Linus holding the trademark to the "Linux"? If so why?

    Not at all, but: IMHO Linus' reason(s) for pursuing trademark protection for the Linux name is flawed. Here's why:

    If I understand correctly, the main reason was to establish Linux as a sort of 'quality stamp', saying "if it says Linux on the box, then you can expect Linux-like quality software inside". Read 'box' as 'website' or 'vendor' if you like. Note: I'm not saying anything about how bad or excellent quality that may be. The 'quality stamp' just serves to indicate that content matches an established 'reference level'. Or that content comes from Linus and his team, not from some 3rd party that tries to piggy-back its own crap on the Linux name.

    The fatal flaw in this scheme: the GPL. The GPL gives anyone the freedom to modify the software, and distribute such modified versions. That includes the freedom to distribute versions that were modified such, that all original goodness is destroyed: the freedom to distribute totally crappy versions. In this case, the Linux name doesn't serve to tell apart the original goodness from the modified crap. It's both Linux. An original/good one, and a 3rd party crappy version derived from it. You can't (and probably wouldn't want to) use trademark protection here to force the 3rd party to clean up its act: by slapping the GPL on it, Linus himself gave that 3rd party the freedom to produce a crappy version of Linux.

    You don't need a Linux trademark to protect the integrity of upstream releases. Copyright law, the GPL, and digital signatures give you everything you need to tell apart kernel.org products from "the others".

    Does a Linux trademark help to fight rogue websites that abuse the name, but have nothing to do with Linux? IMHO: no. It's easy to tell apart Linux-based quality community projects from anything else that happens to boast "Linux" on the box. Again: peer review (by users!), trusted/established distribution channels/vendors, and digital signatures are all you need.

    So what does Linus think he needs Linux trademark protection for? It's a mystery to me. Besides, trademarks smell like "commercial interests". May help to give Linux a serious image and get business on board, but might just as well do damage in the long run (by tainting the 'Free Software' aspect). Given that acoording to Linus, this trademark thing is a money-losing adventure anyway, me thinks Linus can find much better ways to spend his time.

    Oh, the article is about Debian. Anyway, same reasoning applies.

    -- Don't bother to search. There isn't any pr0n hiding in this sig. Anywhere. Really!
    1. Re:Linux isn't a quality stamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that's rubbish. You are a troll or FUDing.

      Linus had to do the trademark dance because a scumbag lawyer tried grabbing it for himself, then started to send out letters saying "give me lots of money, I own Linux".

  17. Nobody "called it wrong" by schon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the Australians called it wrong this time

    No, they didn't. The problem was that the person who filed the application was incompetant.

    Besides the fact that the application referred to Wikipedia (which has been discussed to death,) the reference described "Linux" as a generic phrase for an operating system kernel - which is precisely your argument.

    Now, you and I know what Linux referrs to, but the trademark examiners don't, and it shows from their response:

    "The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use."

    So, the way the application was written, it sounded (to the examiners) that the term "Linux" was in fact a generic term, rather than refering to what you and I know as Linux. If the application pointed to a source that said "Linux is the computer operating system originally developed by Linus Torvalds, and currently being maintained by millions of volunteers around the world", then things might have turned out differently.

    Your blame is misplaced.

  18. Really? by hummassa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really, it could go either way. Since the intent of the GPL is to allow people to freely use your code, then a judge might see it as identical to PD.
    Not in my jurisdiction. (and I am/was a paralegal)
    Nor in any jurisdiction with civil law and a copyright law similar to what is dictated by the Geneva convention. In those countries, the ONLY things in public domain are those (a) that do not involve creative work and (b) those whose copyrights terms expired.
    And to boot, the intent of the GPL is NOT "to allow people to freely use your code", it is to allow that your code stays free all the time -- and this can be determined by any judge who takes ten minutes to read the GPL. Or one minute to read its preamble.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Really? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      the ONLY things in public domain are those (a) that do not involve creative work and (b) those whose copyrights terms expired.
       
      What about stuff that is explicitly stated to be public domain by the author? I used to release odd bits of software with a license that said, "This software is truly public domain. You can run it, distribute it, hack it or anything else that your little heart desires." That's the exact text of the license that I made up and used.
       
      Is that not a legally recognized action on my part?

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  19. The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what doesn't Debian Developers question? It seems everything that involves using the Debian base is in question.

    For example any distro that uses the Debian base and improves upon it (Xandros, Ubuntu, etc.) seems to be evil to the Debian developers and purists. I think sometimes they forget that thier work with GNU/Linux uses the work of other people also.

    Why can't this community just get along? -- Rodney King on the state of Linux distrubutions. :)

  20. Goa7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    encountered w4ile Have an IRC client

  21. Leader, leader, where are you? by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    This doesn't bode well for the future of Debian. Leaving aside squalid arguments about whether a local user group is entitled to use the term "Debian" when organizing a whip round for a barbeque (yes, a real example from the Debian mailing lists), the real question is how and whether Debian reacts to the commercial pressures now being placed on it from other software outfits (some of whose guiding lights are themselves long-time Debian players).

    For example, the new DCC Alliance seems to have gone right ahead as it pleased, helping themselves to Debian's good name with a contemptous "and what are you gonna do about it?" Not much, it would appear (or, at least, not much that's been made public).

    Debian has a great deal of responsibility vested in it, and that's a responsibility to uphold and foster the founding charter and the idea of a universal operating system, freely available to anyone without fear or favour. Many thousands of people all over the world use and respect Debian on this basis and they trust Debian's project leaders to protect that interest vigorously.

    In this regard, Branden Robinson's grand response isn't exactly encouraging. It's like the response of a householder who, after being burgled, calls for an intense debate about the ethics of theft rather briefing the cops so that they can apprehend the bad boys before they turn over half a dozen other premises.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
    1. Re:Leader, leader, where are you? by Overfiend · · Score: 1

      To answer the question in your subject, I'm right here. Where've you been? :)

      This doesn't bode well for the future of Debian.

      To be fair, the imminent death of Debian was predicted steadily for years before I became Project Leader, was again immediately upon my election, has been again today (by you), and, I'm confident, will continue to be well after I'm gone. I hope you'll forgive me if I therefore cannot find the substance in remarks like the above.

      Leaving aside squalid arguments about whether a local user group is entitled to use the term "Debian" when organizing a whip round for a barbeque (yes, a real example from the Debian mailing lists),

      Well, a whip round that involved constituting a formal organization under UK law, yeah. I presume you're referring to this thread, in which, rather than pontificating like a gasbag, I actually, er, granted the Debian UK Society a license to use Debian's name so they can continue to get themselves set up while their critics make whatever case they're going to make about the organization's shortcomings. The issue seems to largely to have burned itself out at this point, and I expect the Project will continue to tolerate this particular usage of its name as long as the Debian UK Society behaves itself.

      the real question is how and whether Debian reacts to the commercial pressures now being placed on it from other software outfits (some of whose guiding lights are themselves long-time Debian players).

      I agree. That's an important question. I wouldn't call it "the real question" because that just puts us in a reactive mode. Our trademark policy needs to be founded on some concrete notions of what we want to accomplish. The ad hoc policy of 6 years ago, as I discussed in the message you seem to be disparaging, is no longer sufficient to guide our actions. Years ago, VA Linux Systems and Progeny slapped the Debian name on retail boxed OS products (incidentally, both were derivations of Debian GNU/Linux, not official versions). Back then that didn't raise much of a fuss. Things of changed. I think we should develop a coherent concept of what "trademark" means to us. With that coherent concept, we can establish a policy that can be efficiently and fairly enforced. Without one, we risk being perceived as capricious. As a hypothetical, "it's okay for DCC Alliance to use the Debian marks, but SLX Debian Labs and Ubuntu are right out." Any given user with a bit of analytical reasoning ability should be able to look at a trademark policy page on the Debian website, and given sufficient knowledge of an organization's activities, deduce whether or not their usage of Debian's mark meets with out approval.

      For example, the new DCC Alliance seems to have gone right ahead as it pleased, helping themselves to Debian's good name with a contemptous "and what are you gonna do about it?" Not much, it would appear (or, at least, not much that's been made public).

      As mentioned at the very beginning of the message I wrote which you seem to be disparaging, I've delegated the specific task of handling DCC Alliance's usage of the Debian mark to another Debian developer, because I personally work for a DCC Alliance member corporation and want to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. I've been communicating with Don reguarly, and on 19 September he posted a status message to the debian-project mailing list. Don and I both wish things were moving more swiftly, but he seems to be stuck mainly on the mail-response latency of the corporate executive types he's dealing with. He doesn't feel he's been jerked around y

      --
      Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
    2. Re:Leader, leader, where are you? by Overfiend · · Score: 1

      Sorry for any typos and missing link tags in the above. I'm in a bit of a rush as there's a flight I've got to catch in about 45 minutes, and I need to wander back over to the gate area. (Useful WiFi coverage in U.S. airports appears to be a task for future generations).

      --
      Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
    3. Re:Leader, leader, where are you? by FishandChips · · Score: 1

      Many thanks for taking the time to clarify some points.

      OK, I apologize for being rude which undoubtedly I was. I guess it comes from a sense of frustration that so many folks just shrug when the word Debian is mentioned, anticipating a lot of jaw-jaw and not much else. That, and a lack of tools for the job. For example, it's fairly easy to show people the fruits of desktop Linux - pop in just one Ubuntu (or Mepis or whatever) CD and leave an hour later with a machine humming away nicely and in the case of Ubuntu very good online user forums to help with the many questions. The user doesn't know it's all based on Debian and may never know. Debian will be mentioned, but probably not that visibly unless you dig around for it.

      How nice it would be to be able to do the same for a new user or small outfit using Debian Debian, but it is far, far more complicated and by comparison takes forever. The DCC Alliance still hasn't changed their website, so far as I can tell. I wonder if it's worth taking a bet that they will before the end of the month.

      --
      Las qué passoun
      tournoun pas maï
    4. Re:Leader, leader, where are you? by Overfiend · · Score: 1

      Many thanks for taking the time to clarify some points.

      No problem at all. The article has now fallen off the front page, so I'm not sure how many people are still reading this, but you deserve a response.

      It's fairly easy to show people the fruits of desktop Linux - pop in just one Ubuntu (or Mepis or whatever) CD and leave an hour later with a machine humming away nicely and in the case of Ubuntu very good online user forums to help with the many questions. The user doesn't know it's all based on Debian and may never know. Debian will be mentioned, but probably not that visibly unless you dig around for it.

      That's true, but it's not a problem trademark law can solve. Remember that a trademark only protects a mark (logo or word). We could slap all the acknowledgement requirements we like on our trademark license, but it's still easy to avoid them by simply not using the mark except buried in footnotes, as some derivative distributions do.

      What you seem to be after is more like the BSD advertising clause, which the FLOSS community has more or less rejected as a bad idea.

      I think the solution lies more in Debian advocates and evangelists spreading the word that these derivatives really are in fact derived from Debian. Trying to promulgate something really heavy-handed will probably fail, as RMS's attempt to get people to call their Linux-kernel-based OSes "GNU/Linux" largely has. It's hard to force people to use a label of your choosing, but you can try to educate the marketplace. The results are more difficult to measure, but that doesn't render the exercise worthless.

      I wonder if it would make sense for the Debian website to have a "good neighbors" page that identifies derived distributions that prominently acknowledge their Debian heritage and cultivate a good relationship with us.

      --
      Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
  22. TradeMark by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
    Does Debian need trademark? No.

    Does Linux need Trademark? Yes.

    Simply put the LINUS had no choice but to fight to get the trademark from some nefarious little fscker trying to extort money from OSS projects.Linky http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.html#Are_you_doing_th is_because_you_want

    Debian neeeds not worry until the same happens with the same result. The problem in deciding to TM is that you have to therafter actively defend your trademark ( Like the LMI does now )or you lose it.(Carries with it some bad press, Debian does not need). All the Distributions need to do more to make sure the trademark is attributed in all relevant places to Linus though.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  23. Yes, of course it should by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

    The application for Linux failed because everyone and their brother use the word Linux in their product names. Including Debian. So "Linux" can refer to Debian Linux, S.u.S.e. Linux, Knopppix Linux, RedHat Linux, Pop's Chicken Fried Linux, etcetry etcetry.

    On the other hand, Debian refers to a specific Linux that originates from the Debian group. There isn't Ubuntu Debian, Microsoft Debian, or Mom's Ole Fashioned Debian. It passes the test which the Linux AU trademark app failed.

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  24. Debian Linux? by Just-some-person · · Score: 0

    What is this "Debian Linux"? It sounds similar to Debian GNU/Linux.

  25. Nope. by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Not in every possible jursdiction, at least. MIT/X licensed works are in a much better/safer legal state. Besides, AFAICT there are jurisdictions where your heirs can reverse the "public domain" status of your work.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048