Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Software Linux

Linux Trademark Fun Continues 337

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
Orre noted an article running on internetnews about LMI's efforts to license the Linux trademark to companies that use it. Prices range from $200 to $5k for companies with over a million bucks in revenue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Trademark Fun Continues More

Linux Trademark Fun Continues

Comments Filter:

  • Why charge for it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by benna ( 614220 ) * <mimenarrator@g m a i l .com> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:55AM (#13378531) Journal
    Why not just create a blanket license which says for what purposes the Linux trademark is allowed to be used, and be done with it. No need to charge companies for it, if, as Linus says, it isn't about the money. It seems to me this would satisfy the requirement that Linus police his trademark.

    • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:4, Informative)

      by enodev ( 692876 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:57AM (#13378545) Homepage
      because lmi tries to get self sufficient. currently they lose money (lawyers, etc.).

    • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Q2Serpent ( 216415 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:57AM (#13378549)
      It may not be about the money, but it still costs plenty to keep a trademark. Some money needs to be charged just to break even.

      • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:14AM (#13378662) Journal
        But why charging non-profit uses?
        I don't have a problem with companies earning money with Linux based products to have to pay for using the trademark. But non-profit uses should be cost-free.

        • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          In spirit I agree with you but legally speaking...no dice. You can't call your own burgers "Big Macs", even if you plan to give them to charity.

        • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Pecisk ( 688001 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:50AM (#13378935)
          non-profit != without money

          Non-profit also means that you spend as much as you get.

          But for correction please read Linus mail to lkml list, it provides lot of details and destroys this oversensational post and articles which caused that.
          It is simple - if you are non-profit and want to call your product 'My Linux Babe', you can do it - just you won't get ANY protection when someone also takes this title. BUT if you are sublicenser of trademark "Linux", then your title is also protected.

          It is clear I guess as that.

          • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:44AM (#13379421) Journal
            It is simple - if you are non-profit and want to call your product 'My Linux Babe', you can do it - just you won't get ANY protection when someone also takes this title. BUT if you are sublicenser of trademark "Linux", then your title is also protected.

            It's not quite as simple. From Linus' mail:

            Or, if the name ends up showing up in a trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark (another legal requirement for trademarks), LMI itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter.

            Which means, that you are practically guaranteed to get a C&D letter from LMI sooner or later, even if you chose a name which isn't likely to be used by anyone else. Which in turn means that you are effectively forced to license the name.

            BTW, I don't see how this legal requirement to enforce the trademark should suddenly disappear if it's in combination with another trademark. "Microsoft Linux" would still infringe on the trademark rights even though "Microsoft" is a trademarked name in itself. Therefore "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" should be an infringment either, despite "Red Hat" being a trademark in itself, and therefore the legal requirement of enforcement should hold there either.

            IANAL, however.
            • Or, if the name ends up showing up in a trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark....

              Gosh. I thought I could be wrong, but as it seems to me you didn't even read what you posted. It says that if you have trademark with Linux in the name with it, you have to pay - it is trademark enforecement, it is simple as that.

              • It says that if you have trademark with Linux in the name with it, you have to pay - it is trademark enforecement, it is simple as that.

                <sarcasm>Sure, that's probably why it was in a section speaking about what may happen to you if you don't register.</sarcasm>

                Now as I said, IANAL, so I don't know if the term "trademark search" has the specific meaning you imply. But if so, the whole sentence will not make sense at the place it was in Linus' mail: If you didn't register a trademark, how could a

      • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by xappax ( 876447 )
        I agree that LMI needs and deserves money, and that it's fair to ask businesses who are making a profit off of linux to chip in, but there's a bigger problem than the fees that's unresolved.

        If Linus is the trademark holder, then like he says, we're relying on his personal judgement to "protect Linux" rather than using it as some kind of "legalistic enforcement tool". I know he's a good guy, but if we just trusted everyone to be good guys, we wouldn't need stuff like the GNU license.

        What happens if he chang
      • Apple tries to dodge OpenGroups Unix trademark with "It's Unixbased"

        Maybe these poor companies do the same, "It's Linuxbased".
      • Some money needs to be charged just to break even.

        Then why the discrimination against larger companies? There should just be a flat rate to cover costs.
        • Charging based on ability to pay is not discrimination. Just look at income taxes - not only do people who make more pay more, but they pay at a higher rate.

          Companies who license software do the same thing too with educational pricing, non-profit pricing, government pricing, Small business pricing, etc.

    • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by n0-0p ( 325773 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:12AM (#13378652)
      There are several reasons why that approach won't work. This groklaw post [groklaw.net] covers the issues very thoroughly.

    • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Iriel ( 810009 )
      While this isn't always the case, the nice thing about paying for something is the paper trail it leaves behind. When you pay for the license to use the Linux trademark, there is a financial transaction that leaves a veritable homing beacon on your product for the purposes of 'policing' the trademark. Most /. readers have probably already seen, by now, a large number of creative and technology content given the OS wrong license with the appropriate legal battles as a result. This is just a man protecting th

    • Re:Why charge for it? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 )
      Trademarks need to be actively guarded to remain valid. And in order to actively guard them, their use needs to be actively monitored. This monitoring requires work and work costs money.
  • Prices range from $200 to $5k for companies with over a million bucks in revenue.

    So I guess that's free as in 'freedom' then?
    • This is not about software, this is about trademarks

    • Re:So I guess... (Score:5, Informative)

      by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:14AM (#13378661)
      As has been explained at great lengths on groklaw, you are absolutely free for example to make a Linux distribution named "Knoppix" without having to pay anything, and obviously you are allowed to say "Knoppix is a Linux (R) distribution. Linux (R) is a registered trademark of the owner of the Linux trademark."

      You are not allowed to create a distribution and call it "Knoppix Linux" without paying for the trademark. And Microsoft is not allowed to distribute "Microsoft Linux" without paying for the trademark. And once Linux takes over the computing world, Microsoft will not be allowed to rename "Vista" to "Linux" and distribute it as "Microsoft Linux" at all, in order to retain a tiny bit of market share, because Linus can refuse to let anyone use "Linux" in a product name if it isn't Linux what they are selling.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:22AM (#13378721)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • How does that make sense? So, all the Linux distroes that don't want to pay for the TM just remove 'Linux' from their name (how many already have it in there?). Microsoft call their version Minix... no wait, it'll have to be Misex or something. But, as long as it doesn't have 'Linux' in the name you're fine? How is that protecting quality or mindshare? Microsoft Vista - a Linux(R)-based operating system!

      • Re:So I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Eunuchswear ( 210685 )
        Yup, I only browse using Debian IceWeasel.

  • This is a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TurdTapper ( 608491 ) * <seldonsplan AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:56AM (#13378538) Journal
    I don't see anything wrong with this. He is protecting the name and still allowing it to be accessible to your every day developers/programmers.

    If a company has more than 1 million in revenue, 5k is pocket change. While 200 dollars is well within range of a couple of guys programming in their basement. And this also allows some protection for those guys in their basement if someone tries to take their name. They might not have the money for a legal battle, but for 200 bucks they can insure their name.
    • Plus, if you can't cough up $200, two guys in a basement have the option of just changing their product's name so that it doesn't claim to be "Linux".

      A product called "Two Guys in a Basement OS" or "Two Guys in a Basement OS, Powered by Linux" would not require a trademark license.

    • Re:This is a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      If a company has more than 1 million in revenue, 5k is pocket change.

      Bullshit.

      1 million in revenue means 10k is a good 1% profit. Such a company has to give up 0.5% of their profits for the year just to license something they thought was free.

      A scam is a scam no matter who is running it.
      • They've been trying to protect the trademark since 2000, it's common knowledge.

        If you didn't realize you had to license the name, TOO BAD. You totally deserve to get burned if you don't do your homework before you go into business.

    • With that arguement, you might just as well say an average income family of 40k/yr should have no problem renting Windows for $100/yr? And all the arguements of why BUY Windows when Linux is FREE would be moot.

      Don't get me wrong, this whole trademark thing may be good. I just don't agree with your rationale.

      I don't know how trademarks work in general, but one thing I was curious about was the comment in the artical about how anyone could create their own Linux name/product, but then be a possible target

    • "1 million in revenue" ($)

      That is _gross_ revenue - not profit. That isn't a big company. In fact under some definitions it wouldn't even be big enough to qualify as "small" (as in SME).

      It would probably be only 5 or 6 people (based on UK averages). Each of those people is going to have to find $1000 for this - plus there is stuff to sign, so add legal costs (for review etc.). Plus reprinting costs etc. for adding the required attributions.

      If we are talking about an open source start-up (possibly loss-m
      • "this must be a kick in the teeth.

        Yes a $1M dollar business is about the size of a decent newsagent, so I can see all the bankrupt SME's this is going to create. I mean it's either $5000 or start putting an (R) behind the word Linux. Really, how can anyone even think about starting a SME, when you have to pay those sort of fees to remove the (R) from your product. That (R) plastered all over the marketing material will crush innovative start-ups, it will be obvious to every prospective customer that NewH

  • Laws (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:58AM (#13378556) Homepage
    Who enforces these laws? Are they enforced by the country where the trademark is being used?

    If I am in Swaziland and I start selling my own version of Linux, who is going to stop me? I suppose the community won't recognize it as an official "Linux" distribution?

    • Re:Laws (Score:5, Informative)

      by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:03AM (#13378598)
      The trademark just means that you cannot call yourself "Linux".

      If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.

      If you call your distro "Swazilandix" or "Swaziland Operating Environment", etc, you don't need any license at all.

      If you start selling soda and call it KevinConaway Coke, you need a license from Coca-Cola. If you call it KevinConaway's Cola, you're ok.

      Trademarks are different than patents or copyrights. They exist to protect the integrity of a brand -- not the ideas.
      • If you call your distro "Swaziland Linux", you need to buy a license.

        As I understand it, that is not quite right. If you want to call your distro "Swaziland Linux" _AND_ you want to register "Swaziland Linux" as a trademark itself, then you have to licence the "Linux" part.

        If you don't care about trademark protection then you don't have to pay.

        At least, thats what Torvalds seems to be saying about the Linux trademark here [lkml.org]

    • The trademark owner (Score:3, Informative)

      by ImaLamer ( 260199 )
      From TFA:
      On January 18th 2000, Torvalds, in an e-mail to the Linux kernel developers list, explained the need to protect the Linux trademark.


      At the time, Torvalds noted: "Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the trademark."


      The e-mail:
      http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0001 .2/0646.html [iu.edu]

  • Trademark Requirements (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nuclear Elephant ( 700938 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:58AM (#13378559) Homepage
    Trademark Requirements:

    1. Does it run Linux?
    2. ...
    3. Profit?
    • Your list is incorrect.

      1. Does it SAY Linux in the product name?
      Y - Pay for a License
      N - Don't need a License

      2. The Linux Name has integrity and is not watered down

      Everybody needs to stop jumping to conclusions and read what is actually trying to be done here. [groklaw.net]

    • Someone already tried this.

      Google for an opportunist piece of scum called William R. Della Croce, Jr. who registered the trademark back in 1994. It took quite a while to get that registration invalidated

      This is why this entire trademark thing has come up.

      Linus has to enforce the trademark or he will loose it, then some the next Della-Croce will come along and try to abuse the system and grab the trademark.

  • Didn't we discuss this already? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @07:59AM (#13378566)
    I mean, what's the new thing? The previous two articles made it clear that it costs between $200 and $5k. Linus posted about it on LKML and basically confirmed. Why is it a bad thing? Well, if anything blame the trademark system, that someone needs to agressively protect a trademark.

  • Linus Torvalds explains it (Score:5, Informative)

    by enodev ( 692876 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:00AM (#13378574) Homepage
    To prevent more FUD being spread, please read

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95 [lkml.org]
    • Linus Torvald explains Slashdot:
      ...quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.

      ...and, once again, gets it spot on!

      (I'm just wondering whether this gets modded 'Funny', 'Insightful', or 'Flamebait'...)

  • Red Hat doesn't have a license (Score:4, Interesting)

    by darthcamaro ( 735685 ) * on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:00AM (#13378575)
    That's the real interesting part of this - Red Hat doesn't have a license, neither does Mandriva. Novell does. So if it's good enough for Red Hat not to have a license than it's good enough for me.

    • Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license (Score:4, Informative)

      by TurdTapper ( 608491 ) * <seldonsplan AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:05AM (#13378606) Journal
      Red Hat doesn't have one because they aren't using 'Linux' in their name. It's Red Hat, Inc.

      • I call BS! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@NospaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:13AM (#13378658) Homepage Journal
        Red Hat doesn't have one because they aren't using 'Linux' in their name. It's Red Hat, Inc.

        Makes me wonder though why Novell pays, being that they are "Novell Inc.".

        What about the product: "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"?

        Interestingly, I notice that the Red Hat web site doesn't use "Linux" on the front page except in direct reference to RHEL.

        • If I understood this correctly, Red Hat is (could be) trademarked. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is "the Enterprise-oriented Linux of Red Hat(TM)", i.e. it's not a new trademark as a whole, only the "Red Hat" part is.

          I'm no lawyer, but I think the whole issue is that, if you want to trademark something with "Linux" inside, you pay royalty. If you do not want to trademark, Linus does not give a shit.

        • Yeah... I think people are making a lot of noice of this, at the end Red Hat could change its product name to just RHEL or Red Hat EL or whatever.

          I remeber something similar happening to the KFC store which was once called "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and after the Kentucky sate (is it a state? I am not from US so sorry for my lack of geography knowledge) started enforcing the "trademark" of their name so they could get some $$ and then the fast food chain just changed its name to KFC because they found the m
      • except that their product is "Red Hat Enterprise Linux"

      • They are creating a derived work of the Linux kernel (taking the kernel.org sources and applying custom patches). They are then distributing this thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's not Linux, although it's very close, and it is being sold as Linux. They definitely need to license the trademark. Interestingly, they don't for Fedora Core, since that doesn't have Linux in the name. I would not be surprised it they simply dropped Linux from the name of their enterprise system - Red Hat is fairly well

    • Re:Red Hat doesn't have a license (Score:5, Informative)

      by n0-0p ( 325773 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:27AM (#13378760)
      If you had a valid sublicense before August 2004 you are grandfathered in for free. Based on that I expect that Red Hat doesn't have to purchase a license at all. Perhaps Novell did need to purchase a license due to Suse changing hands, or maybe they just chose to opt in and avoid any potential hassle. After all, the cost is quite negligible for them.
  • Can someone out there explain what this means in simple words a dumb software developer like me can understand? Say I wanted to create a Linux distro called "FooLinux" now, as an entirely volunteer, non-commercial effort. Do I have to pay the LMI $200 if I want to operate in one of the jurisdictions where the trademark is valid?

  • To end this for once and for all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jurt1235 ( 834677 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:02AM (#13378592) Homepage
    After several days of reading about this subject and totally wrong commenting on it myself, here the groklaw link:
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989 [groklaw.net]

    This article links to
    http://www.linuxmark.org/ [linuxmark.org]

    This explains everything, so a lot of projects should pay, but at this moment they are just trying to make up for the cost of protecting the trademark by going after big players (>1mln US$).

    I only disagree with one thing: A trademark does not garantee quality at the moment of rewarding the trademark. You only know that the product sucked when the trademark is revoked because of bad quality.
    • I only disagree with one thing: A trademark does not garantee quality at the moment of rewarding the trademark. You only know that the product sucked when the trademark is revoked because of bad quality.

      No, a trademark is essentially a stand-in for quality. A customer can know, based on the mark, that drinks branded as Coke will have a particular taste; that cars branded as Yugos will suck.

      If these expectations aren't met, due to quality standards that vary (either way) among identically-branded goods, then

      • No, a trademark is essentially a stand-in for quality. A customer can know, based on the mark, that drinks branded as Coke will have a particular taste; that cars branded as Yugos will suck.

        If these expectations aren't met, due to quality standards that vary (either way) among identically-branded goods, then the trademark is no longer serving its purpose. Then bad things happen to the mark holder's rights.

        So if a Yugo car company would start to make the best cars in the world, they'd suddenly would lose the

  • Linus disses /. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:10AM (#13378637)

    " the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not."

    - Linus Torvalds, 20 Aug 2005

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95 [lkml.org]

  • But... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:11AM (#13378648) Journal
    But I've already paid $699! How can they charge me again for the same thing?!

  • My Favorite Quote From Linus (Score:4, Funny)

    by bajan_on_ice ( 32348 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:15AM (#13378675)
    from http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95 [lkml.org] which explains this whole debacle...

    Gaah. I don't tend to bother about slashdot, because quite frankly, the whole _point_ of slashdot is to have this big public wanking session with people getting together and making their own "insightful" comment on any random topic, whether they know anything about it or not.


    Now THATS insightful!

  • What kind of revenue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slapout ( 93640 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:17AM (#13378688)
    revenue

    Net or gross? :-)
  • ...then your fee is $1,000,000,000 per copy :-)
  • What about things like Damn Small Linux, Linux On A Floppy, Polish Linux Distribution and all those non-commercial Linux distros? If I made a Tiny Linux Router distro for my own firewall, and make it available on my FTP, do I have to rename it, or shell out $200 to continue using the name?
  • This issue came up last June; LWN had a talk with maddog and covered the story [lwn.net] back then. It's kind of surprising to see a big deal of it being made now... In short: the licensing terms have changed a bit (see the articles for the reasons) but the core rules regarding the trademark have not.
  • Doesn't the GPL include a disclaimer that states if you include your work with something covered by the GPL license, you relinquish the control of any intellectual property you have included in that work, and from there it is subject to the terms of the GPL? I thought that the GPL doesn't cover software code only, but encompass other types of work like art. Wouldn't a trademark distributed with the GPL be subject to the terms of the GPL?
    • GPL has specific language related to copyrights and patents (which code might infringe).
      GPL does not deal with trademarks, as distributing any source code has nothing to do with trademarks.

      And this issue has nothing to do with Linux (as in, the pile of software called Linux). It does not affect what you can do with the pile of software called Linux.

      However, it does deal with naming your company 'Linux Widgets, Inc', or selling candy with 'Linux' written on it.

      • GPL does not deal with trademarks, as distributing any source code has nothing to do with trademarks.

        What about things like icons in a GUI? If a logo is distributed with software as an icon in a GUI, wouldn't that be considered a trademark, and wouldn't it affect what you could do with the software distribution? Or say you got hold of a Linux distribution that has the word "Linux" or the Tux mascot in a splash screen. Isn't the GPL supposed to allow you to take that copy and re-distribute it as it is?

  • Dupe! (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 )
    Why do we need to alert /. every time another news source runs across this story?
  • There may well be a risk that what is done now will be too little and too late, where the ultimate risk is that Linus lose control over his trademark 'Linux'. Anyone with a better perspective?
  • ... just follow the lead of a well-known company and call your product "Limux" or, for the ultra-l33t, "L1nux". Problem solved (unless Torvalds then shows himself to be as evil as MS by suing...).

  • I think this is a positive development for GNU proponents. For too long users have been incorrectly refering to their GNU based systems which run the Linux kernel as 'Linux' systems. Now that people must honor the Linux trademark they will be careful to refer to the kernel by that name not the whole system. GNU based systems will be recognised as the federated systems they really are.

  • The best approach to trademarks: use them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:08AM (#13379104)
    Linus is quite right. I will go further and suggest that it is a good idea for small developers to create their own trademarks, and this is especially beneficial in a FOSS world.

    Trademarks are not expensive or hard to come by, believe it or not. You may be told you need an agent. Believe me, if you are intelligent enough to be a software developer, it is easy to navigate trademark paperwork. You do not need an agent. You need to behave like a developer using a new technology, i.e. read the documents, follow the rules. (Yes, I practice what I preach. I took out 2 trademarks last year, for a total of about 10 hours of actual work starting from scratch, though admittedly it was not the first time.)
    My big recommendation: develop a generic trademark that does not depend on appearance. It is a nice stealth weapon.

    Why are trademarks nice?

    • You use them to protect your own name and reputation
    • You can use them in documentation you produce; if anyone steals your work and is stupid enough to leave in the trademark (yes, they are) you have a nice clear infringement and their lawyers will probably tell them to stop or pay up.
    • They actually get you taken seriously.
    • They do not cause complicated copyright and patent issues of themselves.
    I have to add a caveat. In the US trademarks are a bit broken. A trademark in one area is allowed to spill into another, so that our favorite software company was allowed to prevent another company, not a software company, calling itself Gentium. In Europe the rules are clearer and enforced, so if I trademark "we make things that don't suck" as a mark of a software company, I cannot then prevent (say) a manufacturer of compressors from using the same descriptive mark. But that doesn't invalidate the idea. Trademarking the name of a software product, or a phrase associated with it, means that someone cannot simply steal your name and reputation even though they can, perfectly legitimately, reuse your GPLed code.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Linux has fallen into common usage prior to Linus asserting rights to the trademark. Trademarks are an "enforce them or lose them" proposition and Linus, IMHO, let his trademark become too common to enforce now. If I were one of the companies he's extorting I'd try to have the mark made unenforceable due to its commonality and be done with it.

    Besides, if the code's free, why isn't the mark? Shouldn't there be an OSS license to handle the trademark? As long as you agree to follow these basic ethical guid

  • I wonder how this is going to affect the Linux vs GNU/Linux labeling/branding that RMS keeps insisting on?

  • Remember William Della Croce, Jr. ??? (Score:4, Informative)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @10:54AM (#13380070) Homepage

    Most of you probably do not remember him. He fraudulently registered the Linux trademark in 1996 and asked people to pay for use of the name "Linux".

    Many of you now seem to think the name Linux does not need to be protected. You either have short memory or are too young to know what battles Linus had to fight to get here.

    Most of you are free-loaders anyway. Interested only in what you are getting for free and contributing nothing back. Most of you given half the chance would have really cashed out on Linux, unlike Linus Torvalds.

    See: http://www2.linuxjournal.com/article/2425 [linuxjournal.com] for some of the history.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close