| Quote (stupid_idiot @ Jan. 25 2008,21:29) |
| 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). |
I suppose you're trying to justify your name, right?
| Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 25 2008,11:20) | ||||||||
| 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.
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.
*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."
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/
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 |
| [...] if it were to go to court, "Damn Small" would stand a very damn small chance of being recognized as a valid trademark. And if it's not a valid trademark, there is no ethical dilemma. |
| Quote |
| Few points... |