LWN: Comments on "Changes at the Linux Mark Institute"

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

tzafrir — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:54:50 +0000

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
* LinuxToday
* The Linux Gazzete (.net)
* linuxgazzete.com
* Gentoo Linux
* The Slackware Linux Project
* NOVEL SUSE LINUX

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

BrucePerens — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:56:59 +0000

It's absurd to believe that Linus is the only stake-holder in this. For better or worse, the name gets carried along with the Free Software, and it makes sense for the licensing of the name to accomodate the existing paradigms of distribution for reputable free software distributions of Linux that have used the name for more than 11 years now.

Bruce

Does Debian need Linux trademark license?

giraffedata — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:35:25 +0000

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.

Linux mark used to troll

man_ls — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:21:10 +0000

I think that the original poster referred to news outlets which use "linux" in their names, but only to troll with cheap provocations to Linux users. We can mention LinuxWorld (up until 1.5 months ago), Linux Online and whatever outlet employing Maureen O'Gara, for example.

Personally I doubt that the Linux mark can be used as a defense against that, or even should; but it's probably a minor concern to the Linux Mark Institute.

Linux trademark change: who is affected?

giraffedata — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:18:51 +0000

Well, the old license memorandum couldn't be clearer about its perpetuality, so obviously someone who already has one of those licenses is OK.

But I too would like to know how many people have them, considering how little pressure there was to get one. I take it Debian doesn't.

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

sepreece — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:11:14 +0000

So, just out of curiosity, has LWN licensed the term?

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

mmarsh — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:44:39 +0000

I'm all for openness in terms of keeping the community apprised of how the Linux license is being used. That shouldn't extend to participation in decision-making, however. Linux is Linus' trademark, and how it's managed is entirely up to him and those he's chosen to advise and assist him in that regard. If he *wants* to open the management up to greater community involvement, that is of course his right. I don't see it as being helpful, though.

Linux User Groups

lovelace — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:53:46 +0000

So, what does this mean for Linux Users Groups?

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

cate — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:20:02 +0000

No. We had a long discusion, also with Linus on this topic.
In "Debian GNU/Linux", Linux is used as a descriptive word:
Debian versions that use "linux" kernel. Linux refers to real right Linux. So no problems here.

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).
So in the trade off between trouble and "freedom", it seems that they (Linus/LMI) choosed more the part of "troubleless". Maybe with new founding we can free Linus and the comunity about all legal things, but...

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).

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

ekj — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:43:11 +0000

like some media outlets that misuse the name to print constant streams of antiLinux stories

That's not "misuse" neither can (or should) Trademark-law be used to stop critisism.

Luckily you do *not* need the permission of McDonalds to publish "The working-conditions by McDonalds leave a lot to be desired", nor do you need to ask the permission of Nike to publish a report about where and how their shoes are actually made.

And you also do not need the permission of the "Linux" trademark-holder to publish some article critical about Linux. Now, the article migth be worthy of critique for other reasons, like being slanted or factually incorrect, but the use of the trademark "Linux" in a story about Linux is clearly allowed.

It's called free speech.

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

hgj — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:28:07 +0000

The Debian project removes those parts of their distribution that are not 100% free (beer/speach) ... so I assume they well remove Debian GNU/Linux and will only offer Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/*BSD from now on?

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

pjgrok — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:19:19 +0000

When it comes to legal things, openness isn't always so helpful.
Think about all the uses you can think of for the term Linux, like some media outlets that misuse the name to print constant streams of antiLinux stories, and ask if you want them to participate. They will, if it's completely open, and they will do harm.

That's one area where the community has to learn to trust a little bit more, I think, so that the legal eagles can do their job without a handicap. You want them to win, don't you? Then let them strategize in privacy as much as possible.

Changes at the Linux Mark Institute

dlang — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:13:52 +0000

would I be correct in thinking that those orginizations that got the license prior to the change would continue under the origional terms?

any idea how many groups have done so?