| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Changes at the Linux Mark InstituteChanges at the Linux Mark InstitutePosted Jun 23, 2005 9:20 UTC (Thu) by cate (subscriber, #1359)In reply to: Changes at the Linux Mark Institute by hgj Parent article: Changes at the Linux Mark Institute
No. We had a long discusion, also with Linus on this topic.
The problems arise where you use "linux" word making thinking that is a/the only official linux project ([random inexistent examples] Linux Certificate Program, Wireless Linux,...). Here the trademark law require trademark license or you lose your rights.
An other point of Linus, is that you should really protect the trademarks, or you completly loose the trademark. And in this case you get a lot of trouble in people searching to register again the linux (or derivates) trademark. (and you see that already with registred mark, there are always people making troubles).
Last point. Debian has no problem with the linux trademark. Other debian based distribution maybe have some problem (userlinux, skolinux,...), and solution are discussed. According to Linus, low profile *linux project should not have trouble, but if you do big things you should register to LMI (and so you will have less troubles from others).
(Log in to post comments)
Does Debian need Linux trademark license? Posted Jun 23, 2005 18:35 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] From what I've seen, the law in the US and Europe is pretty liberal about finding trademark infringement. Anything that could cause confusion among even the dumbest people has been found infringing. A dumb, or even pretty smart person could think that the whole "Debian GNU/Linux" package carries the Linux brand, rather than just containing one piece which does.I quite often see products named analogous to "Debian, featuring the Linux kernel." I presume that's just to avoid such confusion, since it's not a very easy name. Concerning Linus' stated opinion on whether Debian has a problem: With the Bitkeeper I-told-you-sos still echoing, I think Debian people should be concerned about proceeding based on an assumption that the trademark owner won't exercise his legal rights. Linus' opining that no license is required says something, but his declining to give a license says something else. There's one thing I'd like to add, in case people think honorable users of the Linux mark don't need to worry about legalities because Linus is a good guy. As a contract lawyer, I frequently have parties that think it's a waste of time to make the contract say what they actually mean, because they trust each other and have a separate understanding. I could argue with them about their naivete concerning human nature, or explain how honorable people frequently end up with opposing views of something. But the easiest thing to do is just point out that your partner may not be who you think it is in the future. If Linus dies or goes bankrupt, the owner of "Linux" is someone we don't know. And here's the best part: That someone's legal duty is to get as much money as legally possible from the asset, for the benefit of the estate.
Changes at the Linux Mark Institute Posted Jun 25, 2005 14:54 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Interesting interpetation.
So now the lawyers of many {Linux/GNU/Linux} related companies will take RMS's position of calling their system GNU/Linux :-)
So what about:
* The Linux Journal
|
|
||||||||||||