-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, K. Ari Krupnikov hath spake thusly: > "Derek D. Martin" writes: > > > BTW, IANAL, but I think if you looked into it, you'd find that his > > request is trademark infringement; i.e. illegal. It just so happens > > that Linus doesn't care. > > Err, IANALE, but isn't it infringement to use another's trademark in > your product's name? Like Red Hat *Linux*? A "Red Hat Unix" or "Red > Hat Motif" are sure to generate some interesting responses from The > Open Group. The license that comes with the Linux kernel (GPL with > exceptions) allows you to redistribute the code or its derivatives; > there is nothing in it to allow the use of a trademark owned by the > original author to promote your product. So if you are right, every > single distribution that has "Linux" in its name is infringing as it > is. That's basically true. It's up to the trademark owner both how they will license the use of their registered trademark, and whether or not they care to pursue any legal recourse they have under trademark law for unlicensed use of that trademark. [There are some issues pertraining to the loss of one's right to a trademark concerning not actively protecting that trademark, but that's a side issue and I won't go there.] On LKML (and probably other places), Linus has stated publicly that he more or less doesn't care if people use the name Linux so long as the use of it has something to do with Linux, and doesn't cause some sort of legal problem (such as when someone from IIRC South America registered Linux as a trademark in their region)... The point is not whether or not rms will be subject to legal action. The point is that, should Linus care to, he *could* be subject to legal action, for infringing use of a trademark; and more importantly that Linus thinks rms is wrong, but doesn't really care to pursue the matter. Linus is generally uninterested in getting embroiled in legal or political battles, so he pretty much allows any use of his trademark that relates in some way to Linux. IMO, rms should defer to Linus regardless of the fact that he won't seek legal recourse. To not do so shows disrespect, and (as evidenced by how hot this debate can be on other forums besides this one[1]) fosters some resentment on both sides, having somewhat of a splintering effect on the community, instead of bringing it together.[2] Part of my point is that rms is a big fan of using IP law to advance his cause (i.e. the GPL), but chooses to ignore it when it's convenient for him to do so (as in the case of GNU/Linux). IMO this is inconsistent to his own ethic and therefore unsupportable. It's probably true that rms's goal is to gain the FSF and GNU Project wider recognition, and I suppose his relentless corrections and interruptions have done that. The real question is, does he bring the type of recognition that those organizations truly want and deserve? I have to say I really don't think so. _________ Footnotes [1] http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/09/1516203.shtml [2] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16843&cid=1941778 - -- Derek Martin ddm@pizzashack.org - --------------------------------------------- I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9dPKadjdlQoHP510RAoHPAJ9XuLWLMxxloL+ME7AWPgDqrtkM0wCgqimG 0gwTY42/yeDtEwt9wB5V3P8= =mCtu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----