"Moreover, the IE patches were offered to me via automatic updates within minutes of being available on Windows Update"
Uhm, that's WHY they call it "Windows Update".
Moron. Microsoft takes longer to patch, their patches break more things, and the vulnerabilities they patch are more serious than OSS ones in most cases. Just because Firefox, and indeed, other OSS products such as Apache or Sendmail, have had a number of security issues doesn't justify tarring the entire OSS field for bad security in comparison to Microsoft.
And comparing all of OSS to Windows in comparing security is just braindead. A more appropriate comparison would be either Linux/BSD vrs any version of Windows OS, or ALL Windows apps against ALL OS apps.
As quality of OSS code has been demonstrated to be better than commercial code in several studies, it is likely that security would be at least equal, if not better. As security-concious coding practices are relatively new, both OSS and commercial code obviously need more work.
And finally, nobody ever said OSS software is perfect.
They said it was as good and cheaper than commercial software in many cases. And it is.
We're saying the same thing, if you'll reread that.
The CODE is protected by the GPL, yes. The NAME needs to be protected like the CODE is, or somebody will take CODE that ISN'T Linux code and call it "Linux".
The point of trademark is to provide consumers with the identification of the source of the product.
So trademark is, in a sense, a way of preventing "identify theft" for a product.
Linus wants to prevent people from calling something "Linux" that isn't related to the code that extends under the GPL from Linus himself.
He ALSO wants to prevent people from appropriating the Linux NAME and then charging people EXCESSIVE fees to use the name.
Under the current legal regime, he has no choice under trademark law but to attempt to enforce his trademark by licensing agreements. To do that, he needs somebody to do it, and that somebody needs the funds to do it (as Maddog pointed out, this costs some fairly hefty funds to register trademarks and navigate the laws of other countries to protect the trademark internationally).
So he appointed Maddog and the LMI to do it, and they're simply asking those who USE and PROFIT from the name to ante up to fund the process to protect the name - which is to the advantage of those using the name, i.e. every distro out there whether they're using it as part of their trademark or just as part of their marketing collateral.
I got news for you, pal, the "hoary old cliche" of "bomb-throwing anarchist" happens to be where anarchism reached its finest hour.
You clowns today are the armchair masturbators - all you do is whine about things and maybe break a few bank windows at the World Trade Organization meetings. Whoop-de-do.
Buenaventura Durrutti robbed banks. He was one of the leaders of the Spanish anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. Compared to you punks, he's a hero. You probably don't even know his name.
Now, as to infringement and dilution, there is an interesting issue here with regard to Linux: namely, the problem is that Linux is open source software, and therefore the simple fact is that Knoppix IS Linux. It makes it rather hard to say that Linus can prove a case that Knoppix is NOT Linux, or more importantly, that the use of the term Linux in Knoppix marketing material is EITHER an infringing or a diluting effect.
Quoting a trademark law site I found:
The elements for a successful trademark infringement claim have been well established under both federal and state case law. In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services. To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff.
Well, obviously, under the GPL, Knoppix is ENTIRELY allowed to state that the kernel in Knoppix IS the Linux kernel from kernel.org (plus any enhancements under the GPL), and that the "defendant" is in fact "associated with" - if not "approved by" - Linus through the GPL license which ultimately reaches back to Linus himself!
In other words, given that the point of Linus development of the Linux kernel is to distribute the thing everywhere, it's rather hard for him to prove either infringement or dilution of the NAME by a distro when the CODE is his!
This is probably why they want to make a more forceful effort to demonstrate "control" of the trademark, since it already is a very weak trademark because of the very nature of the product.
A trademark must be AFFIXED to something to be considered a trademark, i.e., it must be clearly associated by tagging or other marking with a specific product or service. This is because a trademark is intended to be a mark for consumers to identify the source of a product.
Obviously the GPL and the concept of "open source" renders the "source" of a product rather questionable on the face of it. When has the Linux kernel been so modified that it really isn't Linux any more? It basically depends on the GPL license to continue to identify what is and isn't Linux because the license extends in an unbroken chain back to Linus himself.
As far as the NAME goes, however, saying that Linus is the only one who can own and use the name Linux is obviously not going to fly, and obviously Linus and the LMI have no intention of doing that.
What they obviously intend is to walk a fine line between allowing people to use the name Linux as a descriptor for the many distros out there, but at the same time require that the trademark holder for the name be acknowledged by the distro so exactly what you suggest (that "Knoppix Linux" becomes the holder of the trademark "Linux") can't happen where the new holder has nothing to do with or seeks to harm the Linux code and the Linux name.
First of all, I don't see what is wrong with that GIVEN THE REAL-WORLD LEGAL SITUATION - that is, what else can Linus do? He can either abandon the name Linux, in which
I could throw a virtual teddy bear on stage for Andrea! That way she wouldn't get clocked in the head with one like she did in Montreal last year (she said, "Okay, who hit me in the head? Thanks, anyway!")
And she wouldn't have to put it in her luggage!
Especially since the next time they come through the Bay Area, I'm gonna get her a huge stuffed gorilla - enough of this teddy bear shit! I want Jim to be able to say he always knew she'd end up in the arms of a gorilla.
Seriously, I can't imagine how the porn will work - do I get a virtual blowjob? If I grope the porn star's tits, do I feel flesh or does it feel even more like a boob job? I gotta tell you, I had Amber Lynn take a five-dollar bill out of my mouth with those tits, and fake or not, they sure as hell felt like real velvet to me!
Reminds me of the guy who decided not to wait for his identity to be stolen, so he went and sold it on eBay...:-)
It does get tiring explaining the same simple logic - one of the problems of a threaded discussion forum. Would be nice to have a function where you could say, "Refer all comments here" so the clueless would have to read your explanation...:-)
Or maybe I should just start filtering at +3 instead of 0. But then I couldn't insult the real morons. That's half the fun of/. But it is a huge time waster.
Nothing you've said is even remotely relevant to what is going on.
If you think the mere existence of a $200 license fee for the NAME Linux (NOT the CODE) is going to prevent you from hacking Linux, then you obviously had no capability of hacking it in the first place, and your statements are nothing but grandstanding.
Absolutely nobody doing Linux development is affected by this trademark defense, UNLESS they own a distro which is TRADEMARKED with the word "Linux". Can you comprehend that simple fact?
Secondly, Linus is in no way "getting anything back" from this process. The funds are entirely going to LMI for the administration and legal expenses involved in administering a trademark (and frankly, I doubt they'll get enough, although I could be easily wrong - there aren't that many people other than the big distros making more than $500K off Linux to justify the $5 fee at that level.)
If you can specify a quote from Linus from 1995 or later that there would never be any trademark fees, I might believe you - I don't think you can do it, since the first trademark infringement was from that period. And even if he did say it, it's not relevant once the costs of defending the Linux name became apparent, as it has.
As for Maddog, he was using Linux International as his organization and spending that money and his, so your objection there is answered. This current setup is a way of requiring the community - an apparently ungrateful community if your reaction is any indication - to support the defense of the name Linux.
Your comment about Linux being more than a name is irrelevant to the discussion, since nothing else about Linux is involved here BUT the name.
Your last paragraph is just plain bullshit. Read Maddog's letter to the community. Nothing about has anything to do with your comment.
And these aren't fucking "royalty payments", they are fees to sublicense the NAME, not the CODE. The GPL governs the code and that will not change in any manner. And nobody HAS to sublicense the name if they don't want to, even while distributing any form of Linux distro, as long as the word "Linux" does not appear in THEIR TRADEMARKED NAME.
As I mention in a response to another post, there's nothing preventing LMI from waiving fees as long as a signed Sublicense Agreement is made by the Sublicensee.
And I assume LMI recognizes that, and does not intend to put hobbyist distros out of operation.
OTOH, a lot of people (other than Microsoft shills, presumably) have been bitching about "too many distros". If so, maybe having a $200 "tax" on some people's hobby is a good thing. I personally don't think so, but as everyone has pointed out, one can easily change the name and avoid the "tax". You only have to worry if your product TRADEMARK can be conflated with the Linux mark, if I'm not mistaken. So "Knoppix" doesn't have to pay; neither does Ubuntu. But Damn Small Linux does.
Besides, the POINT of all this is to RAISE FUNDS to insure that RIPOFF ARTISTS LIKE SCO don't name some crap "Linux".
So the issue is: do you want to support that or not? If so, ante up. If not, figure a better way to do it that WORKS IN THE CURRENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. Wishing away IP laws isn't going to happen.
If the Knoppix TRADEMARK is "Knoppix Linux", then they need to sublicense the mark Linux.
If not - if the trademark is "Knoppix" only, they don't.
Similarly, if you write a book called "Linux for Dummies", and that book title is not trademarked, but copyrighted, you owe nothing.
It's not at all clear that LMI intends to stop "one-man distros" from releasing any form of Linux. There's no evidence they will even insist on the $200 in such cases, even if they know about them. There's nothing stopping them from waiving fees in such cases as long as an agreement to sublicense the mark is made. And it's entirely irrelevant whether the Linux is "compliant" (with what? The GPL governs there, not trademarks) or not.
As for my anarchism, I suspect I was an anarchist when you were letting your mommy wipe your feet. I did eight years in the Federal pen for my anarchism.
I don't need anybody to tell me how to act. I AM smart enough (now, anyway, after eight years in the joint) to know when it's pointless to complain about something that is totally irrelevant to anything important. And trademark protection of the Linux mark is utterly insignificant to the point of free software. It has clearly been stated by everyone directly involved - instead of kibitzers like/.'ers - to be a defense of free software.
I would certainly like to live in a world where there was no trademark or any other kind of law, IP or otherwise. But that doesn't exist and it isn't going to exist until we Transhumans burn the state - and possibly the rest of the human species - down. In the meantime, I could care less if Linus wants to protect the Linux name from ripoff artists like Bill Gates and SCO.
Maddog has spent $250,000 of his own money using Linux International to defend the trademark since 1995. Therefore there is prior history of defending the trademark.
This is merely the first attempt to FUND the trademark defense effort. Also, ten years ago, hardly enough people were using Linux to make a trademark defense useful. It wasn't a significant brand back then.
Under the laws as they are, do you WANT a porn site called "Linux?" Do you want a version of Microsoft Windows called "Linux?" Well, to prevent that, you have to enforce your trademark. And that's what Linus is doing.
Get a clue. Read the Groklaw piece, and the Maddog letter.
This is about protecting the Linux name from ripoff artists, nothing more. Has no effect whatsoever on the development and free distribution of the Linux kernel under the GPL.
It has nothing to do with the fee. The fee is just to fund the operation.
It has to do with LMI reviewing your product and determining whether it is legitimately connected with Linux and does not harm Linux in some way, such as being kiddie porn or whatever.
If it does, you don't get to call it Linux, no matter how much money you offer LMI.
Which lets Microsoft out, since when would they ever produce a "Linux" product that didn't harm Linux in some way?
No, the only reason there is resistance is because people like yourself don't know the difference between free as in anarchism (which, being an anarchist, I do) and free as in "free under the laws of the world as it is."
The world is not free. We have a legal system. If you want to do something in the real world, you either have to evade the legal system or work under its control.
Linus is not me - he has to work under its control.
There is no "gouging" going on here. Read the letter by Maddog - he's spent $250,000 of his OWN money over the last ten years protecting YOUR Linux in Linus name. All they want is for the community - particularly those making money off Linux - to ante up to defend the name against ripoff artists.
And $200/year doesn't keep anybody out of the game except maybe some guy in Ethiopia - and the fees don't apply to him unless Linus has a trademark registration in Ethiopia.
No, a book on "How To Learn Linux" would not be infringing, that would be fair use, as long as you included the trademark symbol on the first prominent use of the word Linux and included somewhere the line that it was a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds.
If you ran a company called "Linux Textbooks", non-profit or for profit, you would have to ante up for the sublicense.
IANALNDIWTB - I Am Not A Lawyer Nor Do I Want To Be.
It's not clear what "authorized goods and services" are under the LMI Agreement, but I suppose some case law would clear that up.
That's about the only negative about this situation - it introduces some uncertainty that might require a legal consultation with a trademark attorney to clear up.
Does the $200 fee for "non-profits" apply to ANYONE releasing a distro and expliciting using the term Linux in the name of the distro?
Or is it limited to "non-profits", i.e., some other definition other than any free distro?
I would assume the former, since obviously allowing anyone to release a distro called Linux would dilute the trademark if it didn't acknowledge the trademark.
Not that it matters greatly, $200/year is not a significant figure (except to poverty types like me), but I'm not sure that it was made clear what constitutes a "non-profit".
Go to Groklaw - link is elsewhere on the first/. comment page.
Very clearly explained.
The article title has "Tempest in a Teapot" in it, and this describes it all very well.
This is simply the formalization of defending the Linux trademark. Unfortunate, but necessary in the current legal regime. Groklaw explains in detail why.
It will have absolutely no significant effect on Linux development or distribution or use by anybody except people who want to do Linux harm - like SCO.
In other words, nothing to see here of significance except a lot of breast-beating by people who don't understand that Linux is no longer a hobby by one guy.
The Linux code and the Linux name have never been "public domain".
Linux is a copyrighted product released under the GPL.
The name is a trademark and needs to be defended under the current legal regime.
The fact that all this is necessary is unfortunate but that's how the system works.
Public boycotts over a free product? Not likely to have any effect whatsoever. Especially against Microsoft and its marketing clout.
Delegate licensing to the LUGS? What does this mean? The trademark can't be held by everybody under the existing laws. So how can LUGS license anything? The code is GPL, the name has to be held by one entity.
Rename the kernel regularly? Sure, I could go with that - but then how do you know, without a source code inspection a la SCO, what you're getting is Linux and what isn't? More important, how would anybody else who might want to use Linux?
Laugh at Microsoft Linux? Sure, YOU will - what about the fifty million people who have never heard of Linux and will buy it just because it's Microsoft? Without a legal grounding on which to claim, "Hey! That's NOT Linux!", what do you do against a company with fifty billion in the bank? It's not even clear that having the trademark will be enough to stop Microsoft from doing this if they feel like it. And you want to try a boycott? Get serious.
Sorry, defending the trademark is an unfortunate necessity in the current primate regime.
Slashdot Mirror
"Moreover, the IE patches were offered to me via automatic updates within minutes of being available on Windows Update"
Uhm, that's WHY they call it "Windows Update".
Moron. Microsoft takes longer to patch, their patches break more things, and the vulnerabilities they patch are more serious than OSS ones in most cases. Just because Firefox, and indeed, other OSS products such as Apache or Sendmail, have had a number of security issues doesn't justify tarring the entire OSS field for bad security in comparison to Microsoft.
And comparing all of OSS to Windows in comparing security is just braindead. A more appropriate comparison would be either Linux/BSD vrs any version of Windows OS, or ALL Windows apps against ALL OS apps.
As quality of OSS code has been demonstrated to be better than commercial code in several studies, it is likely that security would be at least equal, if not better. As security-concious coding practices are relatively new, both OSS and commercial code obviously need more work.
And finally, nobody ever said OSS software is perfect.
They said it was as good and cheaper than commercial software in many cases. And it is.
Uhm, maybe not, watching the Corrs is not likely to stall anything...might even speed it up to the discomfort of your "wing man"...
We're saying the same thing, if you'll reread that.
The CODE is protected by the GPL, yes. The NAME needs to be protected like the CODE is, or somebody will take CODE that ISN'T Linux code and call it "Linux".
The point of trademark is to provide consumers with the identification of the source of the product.
So trademark is, in a sense, a way of preventing "identify theft" for a product.
Linus wants to prevent people from calling something "Linux" that isn't related to the code that extends under the GPL from Linus himself.
He ALSO wants to prevent people from appropriating the Linux NAME and then charging people EXCESSIVE fees to use the name.
Under the current legal regime, he has no choice under trademark law but to attempt to enforce his trademark by licensing agreements. To do that, he needs somebody to do it, and that somebody needs the funds to do it (as Maddog pointed out, this costs some fairly hefty funds to register trademarks and navigate the laws of other countries to protect the trademark internationally).
So he appointed Maddog and the LMI to do it, and they're simply asking those who USE and PROFIT from the name to ante up to fund the process to protect the name - which is to the advantage of those using the name, i.e. every distro out there whether they're using it as part of their trademark or just as part of their marketing collateral.
It's really that simple.
I got news for you, pal, the "hoary old cliche" of "bomb-throwing anarchist" happens to be where anarchism reached its finest hour.
You clowns today are the armchair masturbators - all you do is whine about things and maybe break a few bank windows at the World Trade Organization meetings. Whoop-de-do.
Buenaventura Durrutti robbed banks. He was one of the leaders of the Spanish anarchists in the Spanish Civil War. Compared to you punks, he's a hero. You probably don't even know his name.
Now, as to infringement and dilution, there is an interesting issue here with regard to Linux: namely, the problem is that Linux is open source software, and therefore the simple fact is that Knoppix IS Linux. It makes it rather hard to say that Linus can prove a case that Knoppix is NOT Linux, or more importantly, that the use of the term Linux in Knoppix marketing material is EITHER an infringing or a diluting effect.
Quoting a trademark law site I found:
The elements for a successful trademark infringement claim have been well established under both federal and state case law. In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services. To do this, the plaintiff should first show that it has developed a protectable trademark right in a trademark. The plaintiff then must show that the defendant is using a confusingly similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake and/or deception with the consuming public. The confusion created can be that the defendant's products are the same as that of the plaintiff, or that the defendant is somehow associated, affiliated, connected, approved, authorized or sponsored by plaintiff.
Well, obviously, under the GPL, Knoppix is ENTIRELY allowed to state that the kernel in Knoppix IS the Linux kernel from kernel.org (plus any enhancements under the GPL), and that the "defendant" is in fact "associated with" - if not "approved by" - Linus through the GPL license which ultimately reaches back to Linus himself!
In other words, given that the point of Linus development of the Linux kernel is to distribute the thing everywhere, it's rather hard for him to prove either infringement or dilution of the NAME by a distro when the CODE is his!
This is probably why they want to make a more forceful effort to demonstrate "control" of the trademark, since it already is a very weak trademark because of the very nature of the product.
A trademark must be AFFIXED to something to be considered a trademark, i.e., it must be clearly associated by tagging or other marking with a specific product or service. This is because a trademark is intended to be a mark for consumers to identify the source of a product.
Obviously the GPL and the concept of "open source" renders the "source" of a product rather questionable on the face of it. When has the Linux kernel been so modified that it really isn't Linux any more? It basically depends on the GPL license to continue to identify what is and isn't Linux because the license extends in an unbroken chain back to Linus himself.
As far as the NAME goes, however, saying that Linus is the only one who can own and use the name Linux is obviously not going to fly, and obviously Linus and the LMI have no intention of doing that.
What they obviously intend is to walk a fine line between allowing people to use the name Linux as a descriptor for the many distros out there, but at the same time require that the trademark holder for the name be acknowledged by the distro so exactly what you suggest (that "Knoppix Linux" becomes the holder of the trademark "Linux") can't happen where the new holder has nothing to do with or seeks to harm the Linux code and the Linux name.
First of all, I don't see what is wrong with that GIVEN THE REAL-WORLD LEGAL SITUATION - that is, what else can Linus do? He can either abandon the name Linux, in which
"will this be the same blazing success as Fifth Generation Computing?"
That's exactly what they want it to be - a stimulation to their industry - not a goal they expect to achieve directly.
Exactly.
They did the same thing with the Fifth Generation Computing Project back in the eighties.
Well, Japan is known for these sorts of long-range projects.
They figure even if it ultimately gets nowhere near the desired goal, the spin offs will be profitable and useful.
Remember the Fifth Generation Computer Project? They got absolutely nowhere near what they wanted with that - but it did boost their IT industry.
for the first Corrs concert broadcast this way!
I could throw a virtual teddy bear on stage for Andrea! That way she wouldn't get clocked in the head with one like she did in Montreal last year (she said, "Okay, who hit me in the head? Thanks, anyway!")
And she wouldn't have to put it in her luggage!
Especially since the next time they come through the Bay Area, I'm gonna get her a huge stuffed gorilla - enough of this teddy bear shit! I want Jim to be able to say he always knew she'd end up in the arms of a gorilla.
Seriously, I can't imagine how the porn will work - do I get a virtual blowjob? If I grope the porn star's tits, do I feel flesh or does it feel even more like a boob job? I gotta tell you, I had Amber Lynn take a five-dollar bill out of my mouth with those tits, and fake or not, they sure as hell felt like real velvet to me!
If 3D can work that, I'm up for it.
Reminds me of the guy who decided not to wait for his identity to be stolen, so he went and sold it on eBay...:-)
It does get tiring explaining the same simple logic - one of the problems of a threaded discussion forum. Would be nice to have a function where you could say, "Refer all comments here" so the clueless would have to read your explanation...:-)
Or maybe I should just start filtering at +3 instead of 0. But then I couldn't insult the real morons. That's half the fun of
Nothing you've said is even remotely relevant to what is going on.
If you think the mere existence of a $200 license fee for the NAME Linux (NOT the CODE) is going to prevent you from hacking Linux, then you obviously had no capability of hacking it in the first place, and your statements are nothing but grandstanding.
Absolutely nobody doing Linux development is affected by this trademark defense, UNLESS they own a distro which is TRADEMARKED with the word "Linux". Can you comprehend that simple fact?
Secondly, Linus is in no way "getting anything back" from this process. The funds are entirely going to LMI for the administration and legal expenses involved in administering a trademark (and frankly, I doubt they'll get enough, although I could be easily wrong - there aren't that many people other than the big distros making more than $500K off Linux to justify the $5 fee at that level.)
If you can specify a quote from Linus from 1995 or later that there would never be any trademark fees, I might believe you - I don't think you can do it, since the first trademark infringement was from that period. And even if he did say it, it's not relevant once the costs of defending the Linux name became apparent, as it has.
As for Maddog, he was using Linux International as his organization and spending that money and his, so your objection there is answered. This current setup is a way of requiring the community - an apparently ungrateful community if your reaction is any indication - to support the defense of the name Linux.
Your comment about Linux being more than a name is irrelevant to the discussion, since nothing else about Linux is involved here BUT the name.
Your last paragraph is just plain bullshit. Read Maddog's letter to the community. Nothing about has anything to do with your comment.
And these aren't fucking "royalty payments", they are fees to sublicense the NAME, not the CODE. The GPL governs the code and that will not change in any manner. And nobody HAS to sublicense the name if they don't want to, even while distributing any form of Linux distro, as long as the word "Linux" does not appear in THEIR TRADEMARKED NAME.
As I mention in a response to another post, there's nothing preventing LMI from waiving fees as long as a signed Sublicense Agreement is made by the Sublicensee.
And I assume LMI recognizes that, and does not intend to put hobbyist distros out of operation.
OTOH, a lot of people (other than Microsoft shills, presumably) have been bitching about "too many distros". If so, maybe having a $200 "tax" on some people's hobby is a good thing. I personally don't think so, but as everyone has pointed out, one can easily change the name and avoid the "tax". You only have to worry if your product TRADEMARK can be conflated with the Linux mark, if I'm not mistaken. So "Knoppix" doesn't have to pay; neither does Ubuntu. But Damn Small Linux does.
Besides, the POINT of all this is to RAISE FUNDS to insure that RIPOFF ARTISTS LIKE SCO don't name some crap "Linux".
So the issue is: do you want to support that or not? If so, ante up. If not, figure a better way to do it that WORKS IN THE CURRENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. Wishing away IP laws isn't going to happen.
If the Knoppix TRADEMARK is "Knoppix Linux", then they need to sublicense the mark Linux.
If not - if the trademark is "Knoppix" only, they don't.
Similarly, if you write a book called "Linux for Dummies", and that book title is not trademarked, but copyrighted, you owe nothing.
It's not at all clear that LMI intends to stop "one-man distros" from releasing any form of Linux. There's no evidence they will even insist on the $200 in such cases, even if they know about them. There's nothing stopping them from waiving fees in such cases as long as an agreement to sublicense the mark is made. And it's entirely irrelevant whether the Linux is "compliant" (with what? The GPL governs there, not trademarks) or not.
As for my anarchism, I suspect I was an anarchist when you were letting your mommy wipe your feet. I did eight years in the Federal pen for my anarchism.
I don't need anybody to tell me how to act. I AM smart enough (now, anyway, after eight years in the joint) to know when it's pointless to complain about something that is totally irrelevant to anything important. And trademark protection of the Linux mark is utterly insignificant to the point of free software. It has clearly been stated by everyone directly involved - instead of kibitzers like
I would certainly like to live in a world where there was no trademark or any other kind of law, IP or otherwise. But that doesn't exist and it isn't going to exist until we Transhumans burn the state - and possibly the rest of the human species - down. In the meantime, I could care less if Linus wants to protect the Linux name from ripoff artists like Bill Gates and SCO.
First intervention: 1995.
Wrong.
Try again.
Maddog has spent $250,000 of his own money using Linux International to defend the trademark since 1995. Therefore there is prior history of defending the trademark.
This is merely the first attempt to FUND the trademark defense effort. Also, ten years ago, hardly enough people were using Linux to make a trademark defense useful. It wasn't a significant brand back then.
Moron.
You CAN run a porn site ON Linux.
What you can't do is CALL a porn site "Linux."
Under the laws as they are, do you WANT a porn site called "Linux?" Do you want a version of Microsoft Windows called "Linux?" Well, to prevent that, you have to enforce your trademark. And that's what Linus is doing.
Get a clue.
You're a moron. You're speaking out your ass.
Get a clue. Read the Groklaw piece, and the Maddog letter.
This is about protecting the Linux name from ripoff artists, nothing more. Has no effect whatsoever on the development and free distribution of the Linux kernel under the GPL.
It has nothing to do with the fee. The fee is just to fund the operation.
It has to do with LMI reviewing your product and determining whether it is legitimately connected with Linux and does not harm Linux in some way, such as being kiddie porn or whatever.
If it does, you don't get to call it Linux, no matter how much money you offer LMI.
Which lets Microsoft out, since when would they ever produce a "Linux" product that didn't harm Linux in some way?
No, the only reason there is resistance is because people like yourself don't know the difference between free as in anarchism (which, being an anarchist, I do) and free as in "free under the laws of the world as it is."
The world is not free. We have a legal system. If you want to do something in the real world, you either have to evade the legal system or work under its control.
Linus is not me - he has to work under its control.
There is no "gouging" going on here. Read the letter by Maddog - he's spent $250,000 of his OWN money over the last ten years protecting YOUR Linux in Linus name. All they want is for the community - particularly those making money off Linux - to ante up to defend the name against ripoff artists.
And $200/year doesn't keep anybody out of the game except maybe some guy in Ethiopia - and the fees don't apply to him unless Linus has a trademark registration in Ethiopia.
Groklaw has it right - "Tempest in a Teapot".
No, a book on "How To Learn Linux" would not be infringing, that would be fair use, as long as you included the trademark symbol on the first prominent use of the word Linux and included somewhere the line that it was a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds.
If you ran a company called "Linux Textbooks", non-profit or for profit, you would have to ante up for the sublicense.
IANALNDIWTB - I Am Not A Lawyer Nor Do I Want To Be.
It's not clear what "authorized goods and services" are under the LMI Agreement, but I suppose some case law would clear that up.
That's about the only negative about this situation - it introduces some uncertainty that might require a legal consultation with a trademark attorney to clear up.
I only use SMTP commands typed from the command line.
Clients? What are those? People who pay money to have you do stuff?
I don't have any of those either.
"this is the first enforcing attempt"
Actually, no, the first one was in 1995, if I remember correctly what Maddog wrote in his letter to the community.
This is the first attempt to FUND the enforcing effort, which, according to Maddog, has cost him some $250,000 so far.
And comparing this to SCO is just utter nonsense.
Get a clue.
I've read the Agreement at the LMI, and the following seems to be the definition of "non-profit":
Non-Profit Tier
Annual Fee - US$200/year for each SUBLICENSEE MARK incorporating the SUBLICENSED TRADEMARK
Applicable to
*
Not-for-profit entities registered under applicable law.
Still not clear to me whether this would include, for instance, a one-man distro produced as a hobby and distributed by download from a Web site.
Hi, Maddog! Thanks for weighing in.
Could you clarify one thing for me?
Does the $200 fee for "non-profits" apply to ANYONE releasing a distro and expliciting using the term Linux in the name of the distro?
Or is it limited to "non-profits", i.e., some other definition other than any free distro?
I would assume the former, since obviously allowing anyone to release a distro called Linux would dilute the trademark if it didn't acknowledge the trademark.
Not that it matters greatly, $200/year is not a significant figure (except to poverty types like me), but I'm not sure that it was made clear what constitutes a "non-profit".
Go to Groklaw - link is elsewhere on the first
Very clearly explained.
The article title has "Tempest in a Teapot" in it, and this describes it all very well.
This is simply the formalization of defending the Linux trademark. Unfortunate, but necessary in the current legal regime. Groklaw explains in detail why.
It will have absolutely no significant effect on Linux development or distribution or use by anybody except people who want to do Linux harm - like SCO.
In other words, nothing to see here of significance except a lot of breast-beating by people who don't understand that Linux is no longer a hobby by one guy.
The Linux code and the Linux name have never been "public domain".
Linux is a copyrighted product released under the GPL.
The name is a trademark and needs to be defended under the current legal regime.
The fact that all this is necessary is unfortunate but that's how the system works.
Public boycotts over a free product? Not likely to have any effect whatsoever. Especially against Microsoft and its marketing clout.
Delegate licensing to the LUGS? What does this mean? The trademark can't be held by everybody under the existing laws. So how can LUGS license anything? The code is GPL, the name has to be held by one entity.
Rename the kernel regularly? Sure, I could go with that - but then how do you know, without a source code inspection a la SCO, what you're getting is Linux and what isn't? More important, how would anybody else who might want to use Linux?
Laugh at Microsoft Linux? Sure, YOU will - what about the fifty million people who have never heard of Linux and will buy it just because it's Microsoft? Without a legal grounding on which to claim, "Hey! That's NOT Linux!", what do you do against a company with fifty billion in the bank? It's not even clear that having the trademark will be enough to stop Microsoft from doing this if they feel like it. And you want to try a boycott? Get serious.
Sorry, defending the trademark is an unfortunate necessity in the current primate regime.