Linux  and Free Software :: Another Damn Small??



Quote
So, I disagree with the argument that the term "Damn Small" has become genericized when referring to Linux distros.

You're right about the issue or whether it's generic. There's a distinction to be made between classifications and *actual* trademark names: e.g., Coke and Pepsi are both colas though each has various trademarks that include the name cola. "Small Linux" can be used to describe a category of Linux distributions. There is one in that category, though, that has trademark protection for being "Damn Small." Just as you can't call your own cola "Coke," you can't call your small OS "Damn Small."

That said, the name Linux isn't generic the way cola is -- Linux is a protected trademark. It's governed and licensed by Linux Mark, who allows its use in a variety of ways but reserves all their rights to the mark to prevent it from becoming generic.

It's my understanding John has trademarked Damn Small. DSL is also a commercial entity. It's certainly a source of revenue in the forms of advertising on the site, sales of CDs and other goods from the DSL Store, the DSL Book, etc. Infringing on a trademark *doesn't* help the mark, it diminishes its value -- something that seems to go right over the heads of some people who think it does a trademark or copyright owner a favor to reduce the value of his asset.
Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 27 2008,09:40)
Quote
So, I disagree with the argument that the term "Damn Small" has become genericized when referring to Linux distros.

You're right about the issue or whether it's generic. There's a distinction to be made between classifications and *actual* trademark names: e.g., Coke and Pepsi are both colas though each has various trademarks that include the name cola. "Small Linux" can be used to describe a category of Linux distributions. There is one in that category, though, that has trademark protection for being "Damn Small." Just as you can't call your own cola "Coke," you can't call your small OS "Damn Small."

That said, the name Linux isn't generic the way cola is -- Linux is a protected trademark. It's governed and licensed by Linux Mark, who allows its use in a variety of ways but reserves all their rights to the mark to prevent it from becoming generic.

It's my understanding John has trademarked Damn Small. DSL is also a commercial entity. It's certainly a source of revenue in the forms of advertising on the site, sales of CDs and other goods from the DSL Store, the DSL Book, etc. Infringing on a trademark *doesn't* help the mark, it diminishes its value -- something that seems to go right over the heads of some people who think it does a trademark or copyright owner a favor to reduce the value of his asset.

BY the very nature of the language, Damn Small is just as Generic as Small Linux, as "Damn Small" is a plain english description/modifier of another word.

And adding in your argument for the abbreviation, I'm pretty damn sure (See, I used damn to modify my description of sure) that some large company or Technical Standards organization has the rights to DSL, and DamnSmallLinux, being a computer OS which can be connected to a DSL connection, would be infringing on that trademark, much like Apple Computers would/has infringed on Apple (Beatles Record Company) Trademark when it comes to music.
I think I get your point.

Quote, Wikipedia:
Quote
Proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually to the exclusion of other parties.
I think you are probably asking:
Should DSL's control of the name 'Damn Small' extend to what is virtually an entirely different operating system?

Regarding the name 'DSBSD', I think that's probably okay...
Certainly though, there are friendlier ways to go about it.
Quote
BY the very nature of the language...

"Apple" is generic, "computer" is generic. According to your sloppy syllogism, "Apple Computer" would be too generic to trademark. THE CONTEXT OF THE PRODUCT AND NAME IS WHAT IS GERMANE WHEN IT COMES TO ASSIGNING VALUE TO A MARK, NOT THE GENERICITY OF EACH FREAKING WORD ON ITS OWN.

You've already lost this argument. Like, last week. Why do you continue to waste your time on it?

EDIT: Here are more generic terms that have been combined into marks:
Sun Microsystems
International Business Machines

The only difference in all of this is Linux is trademarked -- not generic. The name "Damn Small" in combination with Linux constitutes a separate and unique mark. The BSD-based project is infringing on that mark because it's using the name and goals of Damn Small Linux. Moreover, as of last week when I last looked at their site, they had yet to offer any disclaimer that they're not affiliated with any other project.

But your syllogism about the genericity of words outside the context of a trademark is your weakest and sloppiest argument yet.
This actualy all boils down to the economics. (Althought we have more productive things to do).

Is the potential loss in income in excess of the legal cost.  Or would the court battle last longer then DSBSD.

What may be moraly right may not always be the letter of the law, and the letter of the law may not always be moraly right.

Other then that, this is a very interesting and thought provoking thread.
Next Page...
original here.