Open licences need a "no passing off" clause

Posted Jul 14, 2011 20:00 UTC (Thu) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281)
In reply to: Open licences need a "no passing off" clause by clugstj
Parent article: VLC and unwelcome redistributors

I don't think there is a perfect policy that can work for everyone here.

Not having a trademark leads to what VLC is now facing. That isn't an issue for Linux, GNOME, Qt, etc. because they aren't popular consumer products like VLC and Firefox. For those last two though, this is a major danger.

Having a trademark will always lead to friction at some level. It adds some limitations on what people can do with your code. But optimally this can be resolved in most cases (like how Ubuntu can ship branded Firefox).

So there isn't a perfect solution here. But I think that Linux and Qt do not need trademarks, while VLC and Firefox do.

Open licences need a "no passing off" clause

Posted Jul 14, 2011 20:28 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

actually Linux does need a trademark (and there is one, and it is enforced). 10 or so years ago this was actually a issue and soem legal work was done to settle the matter, things have been quiet since (I suppose that it's amazing what the realisation that IBM and their lawyers really care about this sort of thing can do to quiet things down, I think the major problems were settled before IBM got heavily involved with Linux, but once they started making the announcements about their involvement.....)

Open licences need a "no passing off" clause

Posted Jul 14, 2011 21:18 UTC (Thu) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link] (3 responses)

I believe Linus owns the Linux trademark? In any case, there is no maintaining of the trademark, as anyone can build off of the Linux code and call it "* Linux". Because there is no enforcing of the trademark, it's doubtful whether it can still be used to do anything.

In practical terms, someone could make something called "TotallySecure Linux", but which actually contains spyware, and I'm not sure Linus (or whoever owns the Linux trademark) could do anything about that.

But this doesn't really matter, because Linux isn't a consumer brand. The people that actually use Linux - like us - know enough to not be confused by a "TotallySecure Linux". But that isn't the same for VLC and Firefox.

Open licences need a "no passing off" clause

Posted Jul 14, 2011 21:45 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

actually, if you investigate it, there is a very permissive use of the Linux trademark, to basically include anything that's based on Linux.

I believe that this did require enforcement at one point (I know that there were attempts by individuals and businesses to trademark 'Linux' as their own, and Linus had to fight it)

someone calling something TotallySecure Linux" as you say would probably not be violating the trademark on Linux (as long as there actually was linux in there).

Open licences need a "no passing off" clause

Posted Jul 15, 2011 2:52 UTC (Fri) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link] (1 responses)

In order to call something Linux, one needs to request use of the trademark from Linux Mark Institute, the sole authorized agent for sublicensing the trademark. It's a fairly straightforward process. Of course, Linux is a trademark for only a limited field, leading to some interesting things like a penny stock called Linux Gold, a gold exploration company, which cropped up on searches for news about Linux.

Open licences need a "no passing off" clause

Posted Jul 15, 2011 3:04 UTC (Fri) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link]

But people create new Linux distros all the time, and use the Linux name, without asking permission in the way that you suggest. At least in the US, not protecting a trademark leads to it being lost.