Linux  and Free Software :: Another Damn Small??



Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 22 2008,11:20)
Quote
Besides, it's free advertising...

No, it isn't. Not when something is purported to be something it isn't -- e.g., a generic MP3 player isn't an iPod. You're not advertising for Apple if in an advertisement you were to call Rio players iPods, you're in effect diluting (and infringing) on Apple's IP because you're using their name (edit: trademark) to sell others' products.

I wasn't talking about a product advertising itself as a better known product, but simply the day-to-day usage of brand names by everyday people. Gelatin dessert is never called gelatin; it's jell-o. Around here all snowmobiles are called ski-doos. Flying discs are all frisbees. et cetera.

Just talking about free word-of-mouth advertising there, not marketing strategies.
Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 22 2008,11:20)
s_i:
Quote
I think it's possible that the DSBSD team think that "DSBSD" is a creative variation on "DSL", much like...
edubuntu
fluxbuntu
notbuntu
icebuntu

Canonical restricts how the *buntu name is used and who uses it. One variation recently changed names to avoid issues with Canonical.
http://opengeu.intilinux.com/News....EU.html

It isn't creative to take someone else's name and goals and use both for your own purposes. If anything, it's the *opposite* of creativity.

chaostic:
Quote
or make a line of toy cars and call it Grateful Dead (As long as there is no mention of the band).

No, you would run into a very big fight over the marketing arm of Grateful Dead Productions, Inc., and their agents (now Rhino Records). GDP, Inc., licenses the use of the name for marketing anything related to "Grateful Dead."
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/ss/dead_trademarks.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/business/media/10rhino.html

Quote
And the other type of trademark is a generic trademark... or linux for unix-like os's

"Damn Small Linux" isn't generic, and is trademarked. "Linux" isn't generic, either, and is trademarked. Torvalds set up a separate entity to protect his trademark. I don't know where you came up with the idea that "Linux" is generic and can be applied to other Unix-like operating systems, but that's patently (pardon the pun) false:
http://www.linuxmark.org/

mikshaw:
Quote
Besides, it's free advertising...

No, it isn't. Not when something is purported to be something it isn't -- e.g., a generic MP3 player isn't an iPod. You're not advertising for Apple if in an advertisement you were to call Rio players iPods, you're in effect diluting (and infringing) on Apple's IP because you're using their name (edit: trademark) to sell others' products.

You misunderstand what I meant by Linux = unix-y OS.

Yes. Linux is a trademark. Yes it is protected. But it has become generic and is a generalized term for Unix-y OSs. When you talk to someone about DSL, do you say linux, or gnu/linux? Or unix? When people say OSx is based on BSD, how often do they go through the trouble of saying OpenBSD as compared to FreeBSD or just BSD?

Mik's frisbee and jell-o examples are perfect. When you buy the generic version of Frosted Shredded Wheats, you still call it Frosted Shredded Wheats, not Mini-frosted-spooners.

Nintendo (and SNES) has become synonymous with video game systems, so you hear people who don't care enough to make a differentiation say "my son has a nintendo" even though he probably has an xbox or ps3.

And trademark dilution is a case of WHO does it. The general public calling a mp3 player an ipod is actually a bonus to Apple, because when someone who doesn't have a mp3 player goes to buy one, iPod and Apple are the first to come to mind. When you go buy bandages, Band-aid and J&J are the ones you spot first because of the word association.
I wasn't even going to bother responding because your arguments have gotten away from the issues here and are absurd.  The ONLY thing you were correct about was this part: "Yes. Linux is a trademark. Yes it is protected."

You should've left it there.  Alas, you didn't.

Quote
But it has become generic and is a generalized term for Unix-y OSs.

No. To this and every subsequent point. You should've stopped before disclaiming the point that Linux is trademarked and is NOT generic. It does NOT refer to any other Unix-like operating system -- BSDs aren't "linuxes" or even "distros," Minix isn't a "linux," etc. *Linux* is Linux, it is NOT diluted or generic. It's used only to refer to operating systems using the Linux kernel. The name Linux is trademarked. Its use is strictly controlled. The fact that various distros use it in their names does NOT dilute it -- their use is in accordance with the terms of Linux Mark, and in certain cases is licensed accordingly.

Quote
When you talk to someone about DSL, do you say linux, or gnu/linux?

*I* don't pay any homage to Stallman (especially after his latest blunders when he showed up on the OpenBSD lists and stupidly accused Theo of including binary blobs) and use "GNU" before everything I say. That's especially true with DSL which uses busybox instead of GNU utilities. Do *you* say "Damn Small Linux," "Damn Small GNU-Linux," or "Damn Small busybox-Linux"? I call it by its trademarked name and acronym: "Damn Small Linux," "DSL."

Quote
When people say OSx is based on BSD, how often do they go through the trouble of saying OpenBSD as compared to FreeBSD or just BSD?

They sure as heck don't call it "linux" which shows your original point was wrong. And fwiw, it's not based on FreeBSD; it's a hybrid OS. It uses FreeBSD (5.x) system accounting, processes, etc., beneath a Mach kernel. Throw Mach into your muddling of the issue. Mach isn't Linux, either.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html

And while I'm casting pearls and beating dead horses, Unix isn't a generic or diluted trademark, either. You cannot just call yourself a Unix. You can say you're UNIX-like, but its trademark is also closely restricted:
http://www.unix.org/
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/08/02/leopard.unix.certified/

Quote
The general public calling a mp3 player an ipod is actually a bonus to Apple

No, it isn't. It's only beneficial to a trademark owner if the use of the mark *directly* results in sales of their own products, not sales of copycats misidentified as being the same thing. It HURTS Apple when you buy a generic player irrespective if you (wrongly) call it an iPod. The value of their mark is reduced by misassociating other products with it. It may be something of an honor to be considered the paradigm of MP3 players, but it is detrimental to Apple when their mark is used generically.

I don't understand this ethically bankrupt concept where people think they're doing others a favor by infringing on trademarks or violating copyrights -- whether it's in the theft of a trademarked name for a VERY similar if not identical project (back on topic!) or by pirating music or movies and suggesting that unlawful distribution *might* lead to more sales. It's nobody else's right to do that if the rightful owner doesn't expressly permit it. And the only question here is, Does John expressly approve of another project using his name on a similarly/identically conceived project? If not, they've infringed and are *NOT* benefiting John and/or his trademark.

And the irony here is that I actually prefer BSD -- operating system AND license -- to Linux (and GPL)...
Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 25 2008,11:20)
And the irony here is that I actually prefer BSD -- operating system AND license -- to Linux (and GPL)...

Interesting bit of trivia:

BSD soon found itself in legal trouble with AT&T's Unix System Laboratories subsidiary, then the owners of the System V copyright and the Unix trademark. The USL v. BSD lawsuit was filed in 1992 and led to an injunction on the distribution of Net/2 until the validity of USL's copyright claims on the source could be determined.

The lawsuit slowed development of the free-software descendants of BSD for nearly two years while their legal status was in question, and as a result systems based on the Linux kernel, which did not have such legal ambiguity, gained greater support. Linux and 386BSD began development at about the same time, and Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he would probably not have created Linux.[2]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
Hi guys:
There is no doubt in my mind that DSBSD will ask permission from Robert to use the "DS-" name ASAP (i.e. as soon as DSBSD is ready for release).
Very few users would gladly support a product that uses another product's name without permission.
I think the concept may be similar to plagarism (passing someone else's work off as your own).
This is a very basic issue.
If they had gone to all the trouble of making DSBSD, they would have thought about it.
Of course, I know I am stating the obvious here.
Thanks.
Next Page...
original here.