Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

1 in 9 Companies Sign Linux Trademark Letter 181

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wonder-where-this-will-go dept.
An anonymous reader writes "More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations which received a letter asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so. Jeremy Malcolm, the lawyer who's leading the charge on behalf of Linux Mark Institute, described the response and favorable, saying: "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names. He added that one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1 in 9 Companies Sign Linux Trademark Letter More

1 in 9 Companies Sign Linux Trademark Letter

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds like the other 9 out of 10 cats said they preferred things stay as they are?
    • Or it didn't apply to them.

      "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names."
    • Errr.... 8 out of 9 you mean?

  • Man, time flies (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 )
    There was a time when Linux was just a handful of sources on an FTP server somewhere. Full of bugs, but its programmers were full of excitement about getting it up and running.

    Now, almost a decade later and the technology is progressing at a rapid pace and people everywhere are loading it up on their systems. I guess there really wasn't any other way for the system to evolve except into a bureaucracy. It's sad in a way.

    What is sad is that it's no longer about the code. It's all about who owns what and w

  • "Butthead Astronomer" (Score:5, Funny)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:00AM (#13444791) Homepage Journal
    When Apple called a project "Sagan", the astronomer got irritated, and told them to cease and desist.

    Then they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan [wikipedia.org]
    • Dr. Sagan was more than a scientist at that time and was more of a "personality". In other words, defending his name was the same as if Apple named a project "Sting". I'm sure Sting would be all over that because his name, along with his music, is his product and his livelyhood.

      Sagan was also sick at the time and I'm sure he was protecting a legacy for his family and his other interests that depended on his name being worth something. Just my guess.

    • Along similar lines, part of the Apple Corp (Beatles record label) v. Apple Computer settlement was that the computer company stay out of the music industry to avoid trademark confusion. So when Macs started making sounds for the first time, the default sound was called "SoSuMi" [boingboing.net].

      But only after "Let It Beep" was rejected.

    • Re:"Butthead Astronomer" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Woogiemonger ( 628172 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @09:47AM (#13445593)

      When Apple called a project "Sagan", the astronomer got irritated, and told them to cease and desist. Then they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan [wikipedia.org]

      This is pretty funny. What you guys might've missed in the Wikipedia article is that Sagan actually sued to have the project's name changed, and lost. Apple changed it to Butthead Astronomer anyway, which prompted Sagan to sue again, for libel. He lost again, but Apple changed the project name one more time, to "LAW", which stood for "Lawyers Are Wimps". :)

      If every lawsuit was this amusing, perhaps the legal world wouldn't be so sickening.

      • Actually they changed the project to "BHA" (as per the article). Folks were encouraged to infer that it stood for "butthead astronomer".

        The codename was for one of the first power macintosh desktops (the 7100/66).

        Given that the other two projects were called Piltdown Man (6100/60) and Cold Fusion (8100/80). Given that one was a deliberate scientific hoax and the other a famously premature and wrong press release, Sagan was actually being quite reasonable. Would you like that company?

        It's also worth noting t
        • As I recall, virtually every climatologist and atmospheric physicist in the world dismissed it as pseudo-science.

          Not to mention that if you read the scenarios it was based on, the scenarios were entirely unrealistic vis-a-vis the way a nuclear war would actually be conducted.

          It was like the oft-stated notion that there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on the planet - yeah, if you space them evenly around the globe, which would never happen in any real war. In a real war, ninety percent of the
          • As I recall, virtually every climatologist and atmospheric physicist in the world dismissed it as pseudo-science.

            Perhaps the same group who think global warming is just a theory? Or that ozone layer depletion couldn't possibly happen? Maybe the scientists who don't think cigarette smoking has any causal relationship to lung cancer?

            The critiques I have seen of "Nuclear Winter" (and there were plenty) were arguments at the margins about the assumptions fed into the climate models or their granularity (and in
            • "1) Nobody who actually planned how a nuclear war was to be fought has actually told us; 2) no nuclear was has ever been fought; and 3) wars never turn out exactly as planned, so I doubt you're in a position to make this assertion."

              The assertion is based on the simple fact that if the US hit Russia first, Russia's weapons (except for submarines) would be toast. If Russia hit the US first, all of the US's SECOND-STRIKE weapons would be toast (unless our ABM defenses proved extremely effective, which is doubt

  • 9 in 10 didn't... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:00AM (#13444792) Journal
    On the bright side, this is vastly better success ratio than SCO had.

  • Now two zdnet stories in a row. Nice way of avoiding dupes!

    --
    Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
    Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

  • Free as in ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lellor ( 910974 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:03AM (#13444812)
    Free to use it, but only if Linus Torvalds approves. I know I'll be moderated down for this, but it needs to be said.

    Is it just me, or is FreeBSD is starting to look pretty good right now from an ideological point of view? Pulling out lawyers is an awfully Microsoft-ish/SCO-ish thing to do.

    • It just has to do with the name.

      This is not unlike you making your own Version of the Firefox browser and calling it LellorFireFox. Despite the code being open source, the name and graphics are often not, so you would need to change both sufficiently to have it truly be your own version (despite OSS implications).

      • I understand where you're coming from, but where do you draw the line?

        If a company advertises custom-built Linux firewalls / intranet servers / or whatever and uses Linux logos and graphics, is that not acceptable?

        Yet Linux distributions often use these trademarked terms and figuroos without any legal action taken against them.

        if it's only about companies using the terms and figuroos for things which clearly are not Linux-based or have anything to do with Linux, perhaps it's more understandable, but h

        • Re:Free as in ... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Pete ( 2228 )

          I don't really understand this latest spat of legal attacks - it seems very uncharacteristic of Linus.

          I think you'll find it's something that Linus himself would rather not do and has no interest in doing - but the way the trademark "system" works is that you have to make a reasonable pretense of defending your trademark (from unlicensed use) or you lose it. It's quite different to other sorts of intellectual property concepts like patents or copyright.

          And that's really all there is to it. If you mus

          • What you say makes sense, and obviously if that's all there is to it that's fine and well.

            What I'm concerned about is that the trademark law could be wangled into allowing the LMI to manipulate and dominate the Linux computing world, and injure Linux and the Free/Open source movement in general by giving it a bad rep and creating animosity between the LMI and companies building their products with or on top of Linux.

            Of course it would be nice not to blame Linus or the lawyers involved or anything like

        • The reason everyone thinks this is uncharacteristic of Linus is that they think of him as the open source hero the media has made him out to be, an accessible version of RMS. But his position has always been that open source is good because it is a more effective of development than closed source, and not about free software at all. He has repeatedly stated that he is "practical" where these things are concerned, and demonstrated that he means it, Bitkeeper for example.

          Linus was likely advised by a lawyer

          • The reason everyone thinks this is uncharacteristic of Linus is that they think of him as the open source hero the media has made him out to be, an accessible version of RMS.

            No, that's not the reason I find it uncharacteristic of him. I find it uncharacteristic of him because I thought he had more common sense than to go along with something like this - it is a slippery slope.

            Linus was likely advised by a lawyer that he trusts that this is a good idea, so he's doing it. Many in the free software mov

    • Re:Free as in ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:09AM (#13444850) Homepage Journal
      Is it just me, or is FreeBSD is starting to look pretty good right now from an ideological point of view?

      AFAIK you can't just go out and call your product FreeBSD coffee, or whatever. The FreeBSD foundation owns the trademark.

      I know for a fact that the NetBSD foundation has been clamping down on people using the NetBSD name in their products without authorisation.

      I don't see how Linus's actions are any different from this.

      • Ok, I'll grant you that.

        What about systems, though? Let's draw up a scenario so that we're both on the same page. Company XYZ is a computer vendor, the CEO, Miss F, has decided that the company should take the Linux route since she has experienced Linux as being a very reliable and powerful system. The company produces Linux servers and desktops, and advertises them as such.

        Does Miss F get a letter from LMI demanding a license fee for each system her company sells, or some sort of global sublicensing fee?

        • Re:Free as in ... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by rob.wolfe ( 875104 )

          What the heck are you smoking? How do you get from the effort that is required by statute and common law to defend a trademark to "will the LMI be extracting vast tribute from Linux vendors, and blackmailing them a-la Microsoft?"

          What is really scary to me is that there is this kneejerk reaction that if an organization does anything at all to protect "intellectual property" -- a horrid term but one that I think actually does apply to trademarks because someone else using your trademarks can lessen the valu

        • Re:Free as in ... (Score:3, Informative)

          by orasio ( 188021 )
          Te difference here is that it costs next to nothing to take "Linux" out of the name of your product.

          SuSE Linux Enterprise Server ?
          ok, let's call it SuSE Enterprise Server, and list Linux as its kernel, on the side of the box.
          You say that maybe you don't get enough recognition (> money ) without using th "Linux" trademark ? ok, you can always pay for it, or probably get it for "free", in exchange of some developers.

          _If_ the name "Linux" is a revenue-generating part of your name, it's not that crazy that y
      • Can we get the attributions right people?

        FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation.

        "NETBSD" is a registered trademark of The NetBSD Foundation.

        Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
         
    • FreeBSD has *always* looked pretty good from an ideological pov. It's just that it's never had the coolness factor that Linux has had.
    • Like most of the rest of the comments in this vein, you really obviously have no clue about the discussions that have preceded this.

      Do a Google. Read previous /. discussions and the discussion on Groklaw.

      Get a clue.

      Start with this [freebsdfoundation.org]:

      The FreeBSD Foundation acquires the FreeBSD Trademark

      The FreeBSD Foundation is pleased to announce the acquisition of
      the FreeBSD trademark.

      In October of last year, Wind River Inc. agreed to assign the
      FreeBSD trademark to
  • Now all that's left to do is for SCO to bide their time and when everyone else has given up their rights to the name then BAM, they strike.

  • Strange thing to do (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DrMowinckel ( 899236 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:07AM (#13444836) Homepage

    quote:
    "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names," he said, adding that one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain.

    I am all for protecting the Linux trademark, and I (think I) understand the reasons behind it. However, I feel that LMI should really be sure that the when they send out threatening letters, the recipients ARE using Linux as part of their business/product name. Their strategy seems like harassment.

    • Why do people always assume letters from lawyers must be threatening? Can't they ever be just informative messages and polite inquires?

      • Short answer: Past experience. ;-)

        Long answer:
        I actually think that no matter how informative and polite a letter from a lawyer is, there is always some amount of threat in it. The fact that some lawyer sends you a letter is a rather good indication that you and/or your actions has been in somebody's searchlight, which is never a good feeling. And, IMHO, lawyers ARE aware of this, and should be considerate, especially if they represent a good-will organisation, such as LMI.

  • Forecast (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:08AM (#13444844) Journal
    When Microsoft buys the name "Linux" from Linus (or his heirs), they're going to regret this.
    • Trademarks must be used. Either ms would have to renamed windows to Linux or actually make a linux distribution. I can't see them doing either.
      • Are you saying that Microsoft would never put out something called Linux even if it meant that they could put the hurt on every current Linux distributor? That's worse than silly.
      • Aww, c'mon, you're not thinking like Microsoft! They could put out a Linux distribution simply called "Linux Linux", so as to make average consumers link their product, more than any other distro, to the word Linux. Then, they could fill it with bugs in EVERY SINGLE KERNEL MODULE! The thing would panic more than Windows BSOD'd! And of course, they'd then sell it beside Windows in every retail outlet so people knew that there was competition, it just simply wasn't as good. ...I really need to own a busin
    • I can't believe this crap gets modded up all the time on slashdot.
      The Linux trademark is owned by the "LINUX MARK INSTITUTE", a non-profit organisation who protect it. They cannot sell it to MS or anyone else.

  • Trademark == reputation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:08AM (#13444849)
    I suspect that some of this is about reputation. If Linux is to become a widely-used, trusted OS, then it needs trustworthy businesses to provide trustworthy services. The first step is to control the name "Linux" so that only those companies that adhere to certain standards, codes of conduct, etc. can be allowed to use the marque. Linus can't control the codebase, but he can control the name.

    I'm not saying that the Linux Mark Institute is doing this, but it is what they should do as part of the Linux maturation process.
    • Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.

      The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.

      Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.

      Either Linux Mark Institute believes in the ideal, in which case truth, justice and the American way will bring about a
      • Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.

        The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.

        Agreed on both counts. But if Linux becomes a popular OS, then it will attract some less fluffy personalities who only see it as a quick way to make a buck. If this idealistic group has no mechanism for ejecting/co

      • Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.

        Bzzt. wrong. Free/Open software is about not controlling what somebody does with the software. FSF still owns Emacs. In fact they asked author of XEmacs to sign the copywrite over to them.

        GPL and other Free licenses are not about ownership, the original author still retains ownership of the original work and name. The philosophy is not about surrenduring your rights as the author, its about gr

    • Compare this to the Open Group owning the trademark of UNIX. Linux companies fought for the trademark of Linux and gave it to Linus (as it should be), and he has contracted out to a group to keep his trademark rights appropriately, in accordance with the needs of the law.

      I don't hear anyone claiming the Open group is making a ton of money off the trademark of UNIX. I'd say your comment is dead on and the recent Linux trademark efforts are highly similar to the UNIX trademark issues.

      Preserving the good name
      • Preserving the good name of "Linux" is what this is all about.

        Baloney. This is being done primarily because the large vendors want Linux®, not Linux generic. "Protecting the good name of Linux" is just the sugar coating used to get the sheep to swallow it.

        The lawyer says "one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain." That means he was trolling for people/organizations to possibly sue in the future. R
        • Trolls who forget history [iu.edu] are doomed to repeat it.

          Note this is from 2000, and it was Slashdotted [slashdot.org]

          If you don't like the trademark thing (which grew out of misue of the Linux name), fork.
    • I'm not saying that the Linux Mark Institute is doing this

      Good, because they aren't. The sublicense agreement only gives LMI the right to terminate if the sublicensee starts using the mark with unauthorized goods/services (something completely unrelated to Linux), or if they violate the agreement in another way.

      The agreement doesn't give LMI the right to terminate just because the sublicensee smeared Linux's name. LMI cannot hold the company to any standards, codes of conduct, etc.
  • Without having read TFA, if the numbers given in the intro. are correct (ie 10 percent of 90 and not 10 out of 90) then that's not exactly 1 in 9, despite the similarity of the digits.

    Good trick though.

    • Re:Ratios? (Score:4, Informative)

      by telecsan ( 170227 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @09:14AM (#13445341)
      "More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations"

      1 in 9 is 11.11%, which is more than 10%. I don't see the inconsistency here?

      In fact, 10% of 90 organizations would be 9.(yes, I realize it says 90-odd, but still)

      More than 9 would imply at least 10 organizations. 10 out of 90-odd is about 1 in 9.

  • Other way around? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:30AM (#13444991)
    More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations which received a letter asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so.

    Personally, I think the bigger news is that just under 90% of the 90-odd organisations that received a letter have not responded to requests to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name.

    In other words, 80 of those companies may attempt to assert a legal claim to the 'Linux' name now or in the future. This is a hell of a bigger volume (and worry) than the 10 that said they wouldn't.

    Finally, if not all of them were using the 'Linux' name in their business/product/service name - what exactly was the point in sending them this letter? So they could ignore it?

    • At the same time, it's quite possible that the other 90% of the businesses sent the letter don't need to sign it. Only for certain uses would you need to sign it, if they don't meet those uses, why would they?

    • Personally, I think the bigger news is that just under 90% of the 90-odd organisations that received a letter have not responded to requests to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name.

      That's not news at all. No businessman in his right mind agrees to any legal terms without running it past his lawyers first. A business of any size at all has a legal department whose main job is reviewing documents to be sure they aren't booby-trapped.

      The question you have to ask is what benefit these people se

    • In other words, 80 of those companies may attempt to assert a legal claim to the 'Linux' name now or in the future.

      I think you're using a rhetorical gesture that's kind of a logical fallacy--not quite, but sort o. To wit, the fact that I haven't signed the letter means that I may attempt to assert a legal claim to the Linux name now of in the future. What of it?

      When a company receives a letter like that, there dozens of perfectly good reasons not to sign it that don't spring from intentions to use Linux a

  • Trademarks must be defended (Score:3, Informative)

    by bokmann ( 323771 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @08:35AM (#13445043) Homepage
    For an understanding of why Linus has to do this, read this article at the Motley Fool (registration might be required)

    http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rule maker000501.htm [fool.com]

  • I still think it's already too late. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RiffRafff ( 234408 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @09:08AM (#13445309) Homepage
    "Hand me a Kleenex."

    "Please Xerox this for me."

    Two examples of how trademarks have made it into common speech. "Linux" made it even faster, since it has been an all-encompassing term for a collection of software for years. "Linux" is only the kernel; a small fraction of the software that comes on distributions that include the name "Linux:" Red Hat Linux, Debian Linux, Suse Linux, Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux, Damn Small Linux, etc. The majority of the software on these distros is true "third-party" software, and the next largest category is the GNU "glue" that holds it all together. The kernel is way down the line, here.

    Torvalds is likely to do for "GNU/Linux" what Stallman never could: get people to start calling the OS after something other than just the kernel.

    After all, how should we divide up credit among developers of all this software? People balked at calling it "GNU/Linux," but at this rate, GNU sounds a hell of a lot better than GNU/Linux/Apache/GIMP/OSS/KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/ Xmms/Mozilla/Audacity/X11/ARTS/CUPS/Java/Mplayer/W INE/MySQL/Perl/Python.

    Be careful, Linus...be careful what you wish for.

    • "look how bright the sun is."

      "Have an apple."

      So, what is your point? Kleenex and Xerox may be commonly used, but so are Kool-Aid and Bandaid. ALL are still trademarked by there respective owners.
    • GNOME and KDE are far more different than any combination of kernel features. IMO, the entire process is screwed up... GNOME has pretty much everything they need to run a distro, but they don't... instead, they have three dozen other distros that happen to use the exact same software GNOME's been developing all this time. Ditto with KDE.

      Why don't we just have two distros, GNOME and KDE, compatible with each other (by installing the other's libraries), and both running on the Linux kernel? "Desktop Enviro

    • Right, so start selling tissues that say "Kleenex" on the side of the box, and see what happens; you'll get sued and lose. Sell "Biily-Bobs nifto dispenser full of Kleenex", and no problem, as long as the tissues inside are actual Kleenex.

      People will go right on calling it Linux, and Linus will let them, and he couldn't necessarily stop them if he wanted to. If he defends the trademark, he can, and presumably will, stop companies from calling something Linux which is not.

      No significant number are going to

  • Unix does this, so why not Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @09:09AM (#13445316) Homepage Journal
    You have to jump through hoops to be able to legally call something "Unix," so why not Linux? This may sound silly at first, until you realize that certain disreputable organizations [microsoft.com] may eventually try to deliberately muddy the waters by creating "Linux" products that are not actually Linux. Kudos to the Linux folks for taking the initiative now, instead of waiting for trouble.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @09:38AM (#13445528)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • This is Slashdot. If it is a Linux or Apple-based company, they say "more than 10 percent" making it sound like a good thing.

      If it were Windows-related, they would say "less than 15 percent", making it out to be a bad thing.
  • OVER ten percent agreed. Wow! Ten! Thats, like, more than nine! Whew.

    Oh wait. That means that somewhere in the neighborhood of ninety percent didn't? Well, if ten is bigger than nine then it must be bigger than ninety too.

  • payback? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by literate ( 628977 ) * <kim@kimbrand.com> on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @10:20AM (#13445911) Homepage Journal
    we use debian linux from Progeny [progeny.com] in our FileEngine [fileengine.com]. we paid the LMI for our use of "linux" in one of our service marks: "Driven by Linux - Non-Stop File Power"

    why not? i'd pay samba too for the use of their trademark. they provide the foundation of our systems. i don't mind paying...shouldn't they both reap some benefits for their contributions to our success?
  • That means that when I follow the license terms of ***** that I can make and distribute copies of ***** without having to obtain any further permission from the rights holders of *****. I sure wouldn't want anyone to come along and try to restrict my rights to distribute ***** by demanding money or other terms from me, because that would be a clear violation of the license terms of ***** that cover much of the third party code contained within *****. Indeed, the only thing that gives the 'owner' of *****
    • Which goes back to the previous stories about Red Hat Enterprise Linux vs. the clones.

      Now that both Linux and Red Hat are resticting (or controlling, to say the least) the use of these trademarks, the term freedom needs some redefining.

      Luckily CentOS doesn't use either Linux or Red Hat in its distribution. Some other clones (like Tao Linux and White Box Enterprise Linux) do.
  • Okay surfing at 3 and reading some of the articles I think I know what is going on but I still don't get it.

    I find it misguided. The reasons I have heard so far do not make it sound like a good idea to do what the LMI is doing.

    Put it this way. Is there any situation you can honestly imagine that makes what LMI is doing seem remotely useful? I can't. This is not going to promote quality, it is just going to annoy people and has already caused at least one person to stop providing a free service to the Li
  • Of course Malcolm wanted to identify the commercial entities who use the word "Linux": they're the ones who can pay to license it from him. Now companies, in Australia at least, won't be selling "Linux" unless they pay for a license. Which means Malcolm won't get his fees from them. And "Linux" won't be getting the aggressive, free marketing from companies focused on their bottom line. Which are the ones creating the Linux brand equity in other profitable corporations, which is where Linux most desperately

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Close