Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Two LinuxHQs?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the will-the-real-hq-please-step-forward dept.

Several people have written in lately to note that LinuxHQ has moved to Kernel Notes. But the plot thickened recently when LinuxHQ sprung back to life looking quite similiar to its predecessor, but with a different license. Kernel Notes is GPL, copyrighted by the LinuxHQ Project, but the "New" LinuxHQ is copyrighted by ECS and not GPLd (as well as not crediting the creator of the nice logo up top). Can anyone clarify the confusion for us all? I'm getting a lot of questions about this and a lot of it smells pretty fishy.

3 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Lawyer: trademark question by hawk · · Score: 3

    Disclaimer: While I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice on this or other topics, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    There's a trademark issue here, too. Someone owned a domain name, while someone else used that name to build up a recognized entity, distributed worldwide.

    Who owns the trademark? The domain holder, the intellectual property holder, or a combination of the two? I could make arguments for all three, barring an enforceable agreement between the two of them.

    And if it's the IP holder, did he abandon the trademark by switching to kernel notes?

    Barring the agreement, this isn't clear cut. Unless the answer is "solely the domain owner," any purchasor of the domain might be unable to use it for a page of the same name . . .

  2. The new LinuxHQ violating GPL of kernelnotes? by emag · · Score: 3

    It seems to me, from quickly looking over the new LinuxHQ site that a LOT of it is similar, if not identical to, kernelnotes. Since kernelnotes is GPLed, LinuxHQ has some other copyright & distribution limitations, and it can probably be argued that kernelnotes existed with the content and layout (especially the identical content and layout of pages like "linux distributions"), and therefore linuxhq, by re-releasing GPLed material under another, more restrictive licenes, is now violating the GPL.

    IANAL, and I don't even pretend to play one.

    --
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  3. Seems to be no bad blood with Jim... by Booker · · Score: 3
    On kernelnotes, Jim Pick says:
    LinuxHQ.com back online! (and it's not this site)

    The original creator of LinuxHQ has brought his original site back up (with a little bit of an explanation). I wish him luck!. :-)

    From now on, this site will be called kernelnotes.org, and I will continue on with my plans for it. The content on this site will always be free, so I have no problems with anybody borrowing it, or enhancing it. I believe the two different sites can develop complementary (not competing) content for the Linux community.

    I am glad that this little episode appears to be over. Please give me a few weeks to remove all the references to LinuxHQ in this site.

    Now, I personally feel that the linuxhq.com thing was a fiasco, but I admire the diplomacy on the part of kernelnotes. An explanation from the linuxhq guy (Mark Evans) is here. He says he wants it to be better maintained, but I always thought it was well maintained. Well, whatever.

    /me changes bookmarks to kernelnotes.org. :-)