Linux and Free Software :: Another Damn Small??

DSBSD is an interesting project. I do think they are stealing the Damn Small name. I sure hope DSL is Trademarked or Copyrighted. With over 777 thousand page access on the DSL wiki alone, they sure have a claim to prior use!

Quote (faroutscience @ Jan. 21 2008,10:54)

Better yet, remember the wisdom of the Grateful Dead and let them copy.

Competition between DSL and DSBSD will be good for both and further promote the DS concept.

maybe even billg@microsoft.com will catch the DS spirit ................ Nah, Never!

Newby

Quote

Better yet, remember the wisdom of the Grateful Dead and let them copy.

Grateful Dead didn't release their work under GPLv2. DSL has. The BSD license doesn't have the same requirements/restrictions of GPL. I don't know what these guys are doing with anything from DSL -- if anything -- but they have some strict obligations if they're using any of the GPL code from the DSL project.

The Grateful Dead also may have had a lax policy with respect to recording concerts, but they don't let other people use their trademarked name in the distribution of it (i.e., if you compile a series of their live recordings to sell, you can't call your distribution company "Gateful Dead Recordings" or anything that infringes on their trademark unless they grant you license to do that). (Edit:) You also can't put together a cover band and use the name "Grateful Dead" in it. You're not the Grateful Dead and their trademark forbids anyone else from using that name without permission. That goes for ANY trademark.

I can't speak for John, who has a registered trademark for Damn Small Linux, but I'd protect that trademark diligently if it were mine -- a little due diligence goes a long way to keep more people from walking all over the trademark. That's not about freedom or competition, that's about what's legal. Those guys could've just as easily picked a name that doesn't infringe on anyone else's trademark. As it is now, they not only are robbing the name but making an identically-conceived product. (The other person's comment about "Coca Sprite" is beside the point because both products are Unix-based, 50MB, similar X environments, etc. -- cola to cola, apples to apples.)

As for "competition," that project doesn't present any. From looking at their documentation, it's still at a "proof of concept" stage.
(edited)

Quote

under GPLv2. DSL has. The BSD license doesn't have the same requirements/restrictions of GPL

Good point, Lucky. If they wanted to use GPL'd code they'd need to work out the licensing issues. And I wouldn't consider it competition either.

FreeBSD contains programs covered by the GPL, so I assume it is doable, in the same way you can mix GPL'd progs and progs under other licenses in the one distribution.

Not sure if it could be argued that "damn small" is infringed, that would only be part of the trademark and a non-unique part at that. But I'm not a lawyer.

I personally lean more toward the "imitation is the highest form of flattery" view, especially in the open source world.

Lucky, not all trademarks are definite. Some trademarks only work in some fields. Like Apple. You can't trademark "APPLE" for a apple producing company because its too generic/descriptive and would give one apple producer a huge advantage over the other. You also can't trademark Apple in a computer related product/company, because it would dilute Apple's claim on it. But I can make a bike and trademark Apple for bikes, or make a line of toy cars and call it Grateful Dead (As long as there is no mention of the band).

And the other type of trademark is a generic trademark, like Apple for apples, or Polaroid for instant-develop film, or linux for unix-like os's, or band-aid for bandages. At one point the terms were granted full trademark protections, but as the terms became generizied, they start losing their protection. Like will happen with ipod=mp3 player. Etc. Etc.

Next Page...
original here.