Let me point out that "us thugs" have had the trademark based on common-law trademarks many years. Besides being editors and publishers of Linux Gazette for seven years (editors from Marjorie Richardson to Mike Orr were SSC employees), we sold sponsorships for the site as far back as 1999.
The reason we registered the trademark was to protect it. That is, if we hadn't registered it, someone else could have and the process to establish the rightful owner would have been much more complicated.
I'm sorry that some of the LG volunteers did not see our changes as progress and did not want to work with us to make LG a better site. I respect their right to start their own publication--just not their right to take the name with them.
In the mean time, we are putting a lot of effort into the new site. We are preserving the monthly edition concept but we also think people having to wait a month to see an article or get an answer is not what computers are all about. Based on the survey, the majority of the people responding agree with our direction. Or, more accurately, our direction reflects the input from the majority of the survery responses.
You will probably be reading some FUD from Microsoft about this soon but the fact behind the rumors is that we lost a SCSI drive. The machine is back together and being reloaded. We should be up soon. Sorry for the inconvenince.
We are shopping for an OS that works even when drives fail. I'm sure Microsoft has something to offer.:-)
I have to agree here. There were no visible license terms until on opened the plastic, I specifically asked the store manager about "what was the catch" and he said "I don't know what's happening--they are being very secretive" and I did exchange my name and address (so "I could receive updates") for it. We (Linux Journal) want to "talk" all about this.
I have to agree with Michael's comments. Linux Today seems to have been as fair as I would expect. That means, I don't see a bias and I have been in this racket for quite a while. Here at Linux Journal, we use surveys and letters to the editor to test for bias. We try to get an equal number of "you are pro-Red Hat" and "anti-Red Hat" comments, for example.
I used to think Slashdot was biased against us but, eventually, I concluded they are biased in favor of geeks. When we have a geeky article, they point to us.
It's hard being non-biased. I think the best you can do is admit ownership or affiliations up front and let time and readers determine if you are non-biased.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we registered the trademark was to protect it. That is, if we hadn't registered it, someone else could have and the process to establish the rightful owner would have been much more complicated.
I'm sorry that some of the LG volunteers did not see our changes as progress and did not want to work with us to make LG a better site. I respect their right to start their own publication--just not their right to take the name with them.
In the mean time, we are putting a lot of effort into the new site. We are preserving the monthly edition concept but we also think people having to wait a month to see an article or get an answer is not what computers are all about. Based on the survey, the majority of the people responding agree with our direction. Or, more accurately, our direction reflects the input from the majority of the survery responses.
We are shopping for an OS that works even when drives fail. I'm sure Microsoft has something to offer.
I have to agree here. There were no visible license terms until on opened the plastic, I specifically asked the store manager about "what was the catch" and he said "I don't know what's happening--they are being very secretive" and I did exchange my name and address (so "I could receive updates") for it. We (Linux Journal) want to "talk" all about this.
I have to agree with Michael's comments. Linux Today seems to have been as fair as I would expect. That means, I don't see a bias and I have been in this racket for quite a while.
Here at Linux Journal, we use surveys and letters to the editor to test for bias. We try to get an equal number of "you are pro-Red Hat" and "anti-Red Hat" comments, for example.
I used to think Slashdot was biased against us but, eventually, I concluded they are biased in favor of geeks. When we have a geeky article, they point to us.
It's hard being non-biased. I think the best you can do is admit ownership or affiliations up front and let time and readers determine if you are non-biased.