Linux  and Free Software :: Another Damn Small??



Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 26 2008,09:54)
Quote
Few points...

You're still repeating yourself, and still making inaccuracies -- "GNU/Linux" isn't a trademark, "Linux" is. Stallman adds the "GNU" part of it, implicitly signifying the failure of his own kernel (HURD) to make progress to the point where it could be part of a useful OS. Your saying that Linux is generic doesn't make it so, particularly where the law is concerned and where facts matter (i.e., it doesn't relate to any other Unix-like OS).
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39215183,00.htm

One, that's Australia, not US law.

Second, nothing in that article makes any mention of "The Law" and Linux's position in it. Its just says The Linux Mark group is ASKING others to give up their right to the Linux trademark.

Third, GNU/Linux is a trademark. Give me one reason it isn't.
Show me where it's registered.
http://bleedingedgeopensource.blogspot.com/2007....on.html
Quote
Third, GNU/Linux is a trademark. Give me one reason it isn't.
For official information on the "Linux" trademark, there is the website of the Linux Mark Institute: http://www.linuxmark.org/

That being said, here's my view (completely unauthoritative, of course):
Assuming if a certain party infringes on the name "GNU/Linux", we could expect the LMI to sue that party over the word "Linux".
We certainly wouldn't expect the FSF to sue that party over the word "Linux".
My guess is that if Torvalds wants to trademark "GNU/Linux", then he would have to get a license from the FSF to use "GNU" in his trademark, specifically in the form of "GNU/Linux". What I mean is, I think it is illegal to use another party's trademark inside your own trademark unless you have a legal agreement with the other party to do so.
Actually, I think the chances of "GNU/Linux" being registered as a trademark are very unlikely, because I think it would be totally unnecessary from a legal standpoint. Reason being, Torvalds can already sue anyone over the improper use of "Linux", which covers "GNU/Linux" as well. That would make "GNU/Linux" a redundant trademark, IMO.
Getting back to basics (I'm not a lawyer)

John and Robert took an idea and spent years developing it to the point where it's finally getting some notoriety within the linux community. In fact, it's a hot idea that is likely to take off.  So some guy comes along, steals both the name and the entire concept for himself, and posts a lot of false PR as if it's a novel idea that he's come up with; all before he even has ANY product.  

It's likely that he figures John and Robert are too small time to get a lawyer, and if they do, he'll make concessions (and apologies) as necessary.
Quote
So some guy comes along, steals both the name and the entire concept for himself, and posts a lot of false PR as if it's a novel idea that he's come up with; all before he even has ANY product.

Re-using ideas isn't novel. DSL is (was) based on Knoppix is (still) based on Debian. Debian was the first (or best earliest) attempt at distributing Linux with a binary packaging system. Nearly every other distro today uses a similar system, some like Ubuntu and Mepis tracing their roots through the same Debian-Knoppix lineage as DSL. And though many have continued to use apt-get/dpkg for distributing binary packages, they don't use Debian's (trademarked!) name in theirs.

Others have made similar small Linux-based distros, some using DSL as a base and/or stripping down Knoppix or others on their own. But to my knowledge they've not co-opted DSL's name for their own projects.

Nexenta is a hybrid OpenSolaris project that uses Debian binary packaging. Did they call it Sun-Debian? DebianSolaris? No, they chose an original name for their project even though it leverages things from several different projects.

This small BSD project should've done the same or contacted any of the people behind similar stalled attempts at small BSDs to see if they could use those names and move any of those projects ahead with different and more modern goals. Even if those goals are similar or identical to DSL. But they didn't. They chose instead to leverage someone else's ideas -- no problem with that at all -- and also leverage their name. *THAT* is wrong.
Next Page...
original here.