More than 90 Australian companies have been asked to pay a licence fee for Linux software in a move apparently backed by Linus Torvalds. Letters demanding US$5000 for use of the Linux name were originally dismissed as a hoax. But according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Linus Torvalds is dead serious.
hehe
He’s gonna be rich if they pay up.
Seems a bit much. I don’t see how it will ensure quality as all either. I mean, there’s a lot of crappy products shipped by companies who’d consider $5000 to be a fee for a half hour with a (1 lawyer) lawyer.
i understand he tries to guard the quality of the linux brand, but how will this money be used? for a linux non-profit organisation or for a new linus car?
(not that i do condemn earning money, but this is really a very unexpected move)
I don’t know, I still think its a hoax. The enquirer isn’t exactly the best source of news. Plus Linus was all about freedom so I doubt he’d do something like this. When I see him say it himself on the lkml or on osdn then I’ll believe it.
I don’t know, I still think its a hoax. The enquirer isn’t exactly the best source of news. Plus Linus was all about freedom so I doubt he’d do something like this. When I see him say it himself on the lkml or on osdn then I’ll believe it.
You do know that I used the Reg purely as a vessel, right? The real meat is in the Syndey Morning Herald, but that is subscription-based article so I figured I’d use the Reg since most people (inclduing me) don’t like reg. to read articles.
Thom,
I do know you used the Reg as a vessel. No disrespect intended. I’d probably just believe it a lil more if I read the Sydney news site.
google.com/news
i don’t like registering either, that’s why i use bugmenot.com
Something silly always comes about now doesn’t it? It’ll be very interesting to see how this all plays out…
I don’t know..seems like something Micrsoft would do. Something just is not right there.
Lol! Microsoft would sue you until you stopped using it… That is standard trademark practice…
…either there will be a lot more threads about Linus being as bad as Microsoft and Apple and Sun -OR- tons of trolling about the end of “open source” and “free software”.
Personally, since we live in a capitalist society, I have no problem with people charging $$$ for their work, even if it is built on the backs of others.
It is not about charging about work.
It is charging trademak. If you want to build your name or product and use the Linux TM as your stepping stone.
Take a look at example like SymphonyOS. It is completely valid name. SymphonyLinux would be another case where trademark license fee would have to be paid.
For example Redhat Linux. Again licence fee here. While “Redhat – Linux TM Distribution (or based on Linux TM) … Linux is a trademark of…” would be completely valid use without license fee.
Even greater example is the Australian so called “Linux Support Group”. This is not official support group, but their name sounds as it would be. How can one know that they aren’t official? They probably gained a lot of customers in this way. And what if their support sucks? In general opinion the final result would be, well… Linux support sucks.
Again, all this started long ago (not now) with sites like LinuxWarez, LinuxBitches, etc. except that now it is time to clean the community. Everything sounds very, very fair to me. You just can’t name your product LinuxSomething (the same case as you can’t name your product Photoshop, it is a registered trademark too).
Do you remember when Linus was backing Microsoft a few months ago about proprietary formats? Some people were really pissed. Maybe Linus just started to realize that even if you’re a good guy some people will always try to make money off you. So why not him? I don’t think it’s a bad move either…
Most people don’t realize that Linus has never been hugely political. He’s also never been all about everything being free. I think his own choice of the GPL is more because of his modesty than his beliefs system.
If Richard Stallman did something like this I’d be more surprised!
But I think what people forget is that this is a trademark. It has nothing in common with software, seriously nothing. Software can benefit from being open. The idea of many eyes and all that jazz. Trademarks on the other hand are what they are. I can’t very well recommend a patch to Linux(tm) to make it L1NuX(tm) now can I? The trademark instantly loses all of its value when it changes, because trademarks are about name recognition and nothing more.
Trademarks are the ownership of a name, along with some other things like graphics. Now, I still think he should let people use it, and possibly guard it. I’d prefer they found really bad products and simply told them they can’t use them. But it may be that that sort of litigious method is simply unreasonably expensive and that this is just the most reasonable method.
I’m guessing that it being done in just Australia is because there are hundreds of Linux branded products there.
Also, it doesn’t look like Linus is getting this money. It’s a foundation according to the article. You’d have to look into the foundation to find out where the money goes.
why do people care if someone else makes money off of them
does it matter?
why do people care if someone else makes money off of them, does it matter?
They must not believe in trickle-down economics or something..
It is not about making money, it is about protecting the name and the quality it stands for. Linux is not a distribution, it is just kernel.
Here is one technical example. When comparing Linux vs. Windows voulnerabilities, everybody counts kde, gs, etc, which is plain wrong.
You just can’t make “LinuxSomething” software without paying a fee. On the other side “Something for Linux(TM) … Linux is a trademark of…” is free of license fee. You have to admit that LinuxSomething stands as too official and global, which leads that average people start taking it as official solution and thus part of Linux.
Why do companies like Linksys use Linux anway when they could use BSD? Either use BSD or call your software Xunil.
Because only companies who have Linux in their name or their products name have to pay… I’ve never seen a “Linksys Linux Router.”
They use Linux because it’s incredibly scalable, both ways.
if that IS true.. *snicker*
Guess torvalds isnt a saintly, FREE software man that everyone seems to think he is.
that is to funny.
After many years, people finally begin to see what the real hoax is all about. Get lots of clueless people to believe in “Free” and “Open” software, and get them to work for free.
All this just to be able to make loads of money in the end.
I guess you really do forget your roots when you grow up. Talk about figuring out the best way to destroy the synergy of people and the community that made Linux possible. I’d like to take a moment to congratulate Linus on doing exactly what Bill Gates was trying so hard to do and failing so beautifuly at it. Not that it is something you congratulate people on, but still, single handedly killing Linux is a feat.
And just exactly how does paying $5000 prove you are a quality distribution? I thought it just proves that you have profit motives behind your distribution. And who is to decide what is and what isn’t a quality distribution? This is a new low for Linus.
This is a good thing IMHO. We need people to feel that when they spend downloading time and money on an OS they really get quality goods. Sooner or later the “Linux” brand have to actually stand for some garuantee. As it is now, only the people in the know-how-and-what knows that when a distibution has “Linux” in the name – it has Linux as the kernel.
There is, unfortunately, a lot of truth in that.
You need to understand how Australian Trademark Law works to understand this article.
This money isn’t being demanded in the US. It’s being demanded in Australia where they’re trying to establish the Linux trademark.
From what I understand, doing this is a necessary part of establishing the Linux trademark under Australian trademark law.
So please, let’s not go jumping to sensationalist conclusions.
Could you provide us all with some good links about Australian trademark law?
While I can’t give you “law links”, the best pieces about this particular issue can be found here at a few australian websites:
http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Suspicions_fade_over_Linu…
Wow, great links. Thank you very much!
Those links make for the most insightful comment here yet!
I go …
This really caught me off guard. This doesn’t really lend itself to an open source attitude.
This will start a war, but choose BSD. They do it right.
This is gonna be a painful thread to read 😉
But according to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Open Sauce king is dead serious.
Woah, seems people don’t read that well or understand or just plain want to pee on Linux. You can’t use the name Linux in your product. You can use Linux, just not use the name of it for your product. If you don’t make money off of the product, ie nonprofit, you don’t need to pay. If you want to make money off of it, then you need to pay them that money. Simple I thought. Guess not for everyone though.
If I’m wrong, please point me to an article that claims otherwise.
If someone wants to feel good about spending money on an OS and Linus wants a brand whose value is based on monetary criteria, why can’t Linus just create a new distro and charge $5,000 for that instead of making the entire community pay the price? I’m in just as much disbelief as anyone else. $5,000 seems to completely disregard the principles I thought Linux was based on.
All OSS aren’t nice
*hums along to a certain S.P.O.C.K. track*
Switch to Freebsd(real freedom)!!
Right, and always ways behind the corporate businesses because they can use everything to give nothing in return. Besides, it’s not about software, it’s about a name. His name btw, if someone brings on a bad product with the name linux, all distributions will get to know that: less people are going to move…, you know the rest I think. You can use linux without using the name.
FIY: FreeBSD is also a trademark. If you call your software ‘Yoyosoft FreeBSD multi-network firewall’, they will most likely demand that you stop infriging the FreeBSD trademark. This is not a bad thing, because FreeBSD has built a reputation of performance and stability, this reputation can easily be misused to promote other products that are based on FreeBSD (but may be broken as hell).
The Linux situation is a bit different, because there already exist hundreds of Linux distributions and companies that use the name. Besides that Linux is just a kernel and not a complete operating system. This regulation is pretty relaxed, because it allows people to use the trademark. At the same time it will block publications that carry the Linux name and produce nothing but FUD, or certain companies that sell Linux and sue Linux developers at the same time.
Not a bad move.
Why only in Australia or have the companies in other countries allready paid the $5000?
I think you can rest assured that you will be able to pay your dues to the Open Sores kings.
Because Austrailia is special. :-p
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989
Give that a read to learn details.
Exactly.
People, get a grip. Linus is just enforcing the _trademark_ that is all. Calm down.
And who do you think ends up paying the license fees?
The end users of course.
“And who do you think ends up paying the license fees?
The end users of course.”
Why don’t you use your brain before you use your keyboard?
How much does the end user pay with most distributions being available for free?
Good point.
Not to mention that the $5000 fee is for companies with gross revenues over $1 million. Wow, that’s really going to hurt the customer who has to purchase a distribution. $5000 spread over the number of customer it takes to generate $1 million.
Sheesh! People relax and go to the linux mark home page and red the facts before you get so worked up.
http://www.linuxmark.org
It’s been posted several times. Do you people ever read the provided links.
My post wasn’t an endorsement of the licensing, merely a means of permitting others to obtain more information about what is actually transpiring. An article that says “Linux patented Linux” has all of the professionalism of an article written by a small child. I think protecting the mark at this point is fairly silly, myself. Perhaps since the mark has been used unabated for so long to refer to complete systems, rather than merely the kernel, there’s some hope of someone getting it invalidated at some point. That would suit me just fine.
http://www.linuxmark.org/
thats says it all, crazy, I am not happy, and that is for the USA, so, whatever, and yes I am really shocked.
What’s so crazy.
Did you read the fee schedule? Did you read the site? This money doesn’t go to Linus. It goes to protect the trademark.
http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html
You only pay $5000 if you have revenues of $1 million.
The non-profit license is $200.
The for profit license for gross revenue less than $100,00 is $200.
This is dirt cheap and seems to be as reasonable as they could possibly be and still enforce the trademark.
http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html
Has anyone heard this from Linus himself though? Or is this just lawyers getting cash happy?
Does that mean that Red Hat would have to pay $5000 for using Red Hat Linux? Novell $5000 for SUSE Linux? ect.
I think yes, but only if they were based in Australia. And even then they could just drop Linux from their name and not have to pay at all.
No.
http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html
For Profit/Other Tier 1
[This is a “grandfather clause” for written sublicenses executed prior to August 1, 2004]
Annual Fee = $0
And yet there is not a “grandfather clause” for non profit…
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989
Why post the stupid and inaccurate inquirer article, if groklaw does have a much better writeup about this matter, aptly named:
Tempest in a Teapot
Is there an echo in here?
Well, finally something of value that M$ can buy. A trademark has a value, determined by the highest bidder. I wonder how long it will be before the Linux trademark belongs to the industry giant. Bet your cotton socks the license to use the t/m will be way more than $5000.00 when M$ owns it.<p>
And don’t even start with that “we’re not selling” rubbish. Way too many companies have been bought up by the behemoth for that to hold water. Also, the trademark owner owns the trademark worldwide. We depend on the owner’s goodwill toward the community? What a bunch of trusting fools we are.<p>
Oh, but if we don’t protect it we lose it… Did we ever have it? Did it matter?<p>
What a scam.
let’s not go jumping to sensationalist conclusions.
Us? No, we’d never do a thing like that..
If you don’t support this but you still support patents, trademarks, and copyrights, you’re a hypocrite.
The only reason he has to protect his trademark is because ITS THE LAW!!!
Fix your stupid laws or be creative enough to make up your own name, and stuff, if you don’t get it for free with acceptable license terms.
The GPL negates patent law and turns copyright on its head, but it doesn’t do anything about trademarks.
Think Microsoft would sell you rights to use their name for $5000? What about Apple? Or Sun? IBM? Ford? GM? How about Mandrake the magician? SuSE? AOL? BMG? Oh, I know.. UNIX! They would probably sell you rights to their trademark for $5000… right?
What’s freakin nuts is most people don’t know the difference between trademarks, copyrights or patents. Most people don’t even read their End User License Agreements. Most people are retarded.
What’s freakin nuts is most people don’t know the difference between trademarks, copyrights or patents. Most people don’t even read their End User License Agreements. Most people are retarded.
It’s the sad result of all the talk about “Intelectual Property”. As I’ve heard it (from someone in a marketing company) the Interlectual Property term was invented in a campian to “educate” consumers about “the ownership of immaterial things”. It looks as though they’ve succeeded in their goal.
but how will this money be used?
It will be used for paying of the cost of setting up and writing the contracts giving the company that pays the legal right to use the trademark. Since this will have to involve lawyers and legal processing, it will cost money. You don’t expect Linus to pay for this out of his own pocket?
And the price is on a sliding scale, making the high revenue outfits pay more than the low revenue ones. Basically making those who can afford it subsidies the ones who can’t.
If he doesn’t trademark the name, somebody else could and then he’d risk getting sued over his own OS like when somebody tried to take away the BSD Daemon away from McKusick:
http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/
And for all the naysayers and Windoze fanboys, Linux is still free.
“If he doesn’t trademark the name, somebody else could. . ..” Somebody tried and was stopped, at some cost. However, it’s not a case of every name in business needing a keeper.
In any case, the charges are significant, annual, perpetual, and could presumably be raised. It’s not at all in the spirit of free software. Linus (or his agents) siccing the lawyers on LUG’s: it’s really incredible.
He’s not sicking his lawyers on LUGs from what I have heard. Please provide a link to substanciate your claims. I hope you realize that stating this if it is not true could be construed as slander and is actionable.
Even the Register article doesn’t go so far as to claim this, despite other innaccuracies in the article.
The lawyers are at the Linux Mark Institute. They have prepared a document displayed on their website that says “non-profits” will be charged $200 for use of “Linux” as a mark. I can’t point to a current letter to a LUG demanding payment. However, do a search of the Groklaw article for comments about user groups: you’ll see that many writers think they may well be among the “non-profits” to which the Linux Mark Institute refers.
Non-profits as in Debian and other such projects. LUG’s will not be affected by this, mainly because they are a group gathering, not an organization.
Even if they were, you still can’t run around making accusations without backing up your claims. It is still slander. I doubt Linus would actually sue you, cause if he was that litigation happy, he would have nailed SCO a long time ago, but you get the point (I hope).
Do please name me any LUG using the word ‘Linux’ in a commercial context or producing, well, any revenue at all…
So Moulenfool … is Linus a “thiefs” and a liar? Bwuahahaha.
“So Moulenfool”
Its Moulinneuf … thats my real name , copy paste still dont work on your OS , *respect* is something you cant understand.
“is Linus a “thiefs” and a liar?”
Neither , if you took the time to read properly ( which you never do) , its basically because of the Trademark law in Australia , BSD as the same problem , but I guess there trademark is of no value for anyone to really protect it and forget about Microsoft or Apple letting you use there name in your products.
Well, If I’m not mistaken, I remember reading, like 5 years ago, a bio of Linus which said that…
1) The Linux operation system was free
2) Linus had copyrighted the “Linux” name so that no corporation could use it to steal some of its fire (popularity, brand fame, mind share..whatever)…
3) Linus said he would enforce the copyright (this article shows it wasn’t an empty threat).
Mmmh, couldn’t find a link to the article/bio that said that but I found another funny article :
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8734
btw… Someone here said that he didn’t trust/like the inquirer.
Well…I found their articles so refreshing…
They are so funny…and their piece of news/guesses usually come to pass.
Man, how I like to read the inquirer
I would charge $50,000 or a lot more..
A trademark is an instant monopoly. And with the popularity of Linux, he should cash in or keep it out of everyone’s reach until they’re willing to pay millions or billions, just for the right to use that name in their stupid little products.
I would make all uncreative greedy capitalists my bitch, if I were in his position.
Should just be thankful he’s not like me, or Bill Gates.
Nice one, assuming is for real.
PC-BSD, here I come…..
…it would be another 5 years until novel makes some profit with it.
This is an excellent way to show business that money can be made from a free product. Mind you, Linux is not chargeing for the code. All the freedoms associated with free software are still there. You are paying to use a very strong brand name. I dowubt that even RMS would object to that.
Besides, if I’m not mistaken trade marks needs to be defended or they will be lost in most legal systems, so I guess he had not much of a choise.
“You are paying to use a very strong brand name. I dowubt that even RMS would object to that.”
Linux is not a brand name, it’s a philosophy. And from what I can tell Linus urge to control the name conflicts with the philosophy
If I release a product called ‘brand-x’ and its actually a linux distro, can I still use the Linux name to describe the kernel in documentation, or have the Linux name appear on boot without paying?
you can say it is a linux distribution, provided you say that Linux(r) is a trademark of Linux torvalds, and you don’t call it “Brand-x Linux” once you use the word Linux in the product name you have to pay.
With the recent news about Microsoft patenting Apple’s iPod technology and charging them $10 per iPod to license “their” technology, it is not farfetched to assume that they would trademark Linux and charge large sums of money from all Linux distributions in order to put them out of business.
I don’t find the article terrifically clear. Is he demanding that people pay him to use “Linux” in their product names? (as in, “Red Hat Linux” as the name of the OS) Or is he trying to get some control over who uses “Linux” for their company names? (Like if I started a company and called it “Linux International, Inc.”)
If I release a product called ‘brand-x’ and its actually a linux distro, can I still use the Linux name to describe the kernel in documentation
Of course you can. The same way you can write MS Windows whitout paying Microsoft anything for using their trademark. You may have to use the (r) symbol some places and referencing it with “Linux is trademark of Linus etc…”, like you do with any other trademark.
Since the “Linux”(tm) trademark is plastered all over the “Linux”(tm) code, can trademark law prevent me from exercising the rights granted by the GPL? If I copy and publish the code, I’m also using the trademark within the code no? What are these so-called ‘quality’ concerns anyway? Has anyone actually violated those? Who?
Can a non-profit actually make money selling trademark licenses? Why does a non-profit need the money anyway? Isn’t there a thing like pro-deo lawyers? What if Microsoft trademarks GNU? Where can I get a license to the GNU trademark?
What if Microsoft trademarks GNU? Where can I get a license to the GNU trademark?
Sigh….
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=od9o4q.2.6
*Still balking at the inability of people to differentiate between copyright and trademark law when my 10 year old brother understands the difference*
This link was supposed to point at the FSF ownership of the GNU trademark. Go to uspto.gov and search gnu. For some reason, you can’t link to search results with them.
So much for “FREE” software.
Just who do you think “Solaris (TM)” and “OpenSolaris (TM)” is registered to, you nitwit?
-5 Flamebait.
Read the actual details, and you will find it is a sliding scale. Most small, non-profits would only potentially be liable for $200 (and possibly less if they contact LM directly).
Utter bullshit! GNU are a philosophy, but Linux is not. Linux is just some piece of code happening to use a GNU license. Linux has also evolved to become a rather strong brand name.
>>Linux is not a brand name, it’s a philosophy. And from what I can tell Linus urge to control the name conflicts with the philosophy
Of course it is and it needs to be protected.
but not by extorting community projects:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00277.html
Doesn’t Linus still own the trademark “Linux”? If so, why shouldn’t he be able to charge for its use, especially if it is used by commercial vendors?
The word ‘hipocrit’ keeps flickering into my mind. Must be just the glare off of the millions of dollars IBM put into it.
Let’s just rename it GNUNIX and get rid of the bozo.
Let’s just rename it GNUNIX and get rid of the bozo.
GNUNIX.. I like that
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. GNU/Linux will still be GPL and therefor free. 5000$ for a company like Novell or RedHat, Ubuntu (Canonical) or most bigger Linux players… a piece of cake, it will not effect the price of the product at all. From what i gather they need some money for the trademark as getting the trademark itself is an expensive task and not trademarking a strong brand like this … well someone else would and charge a lot more or spread mis-information. Trademark != software licence !!!!
Not with the content of the article…. not with the authors of the article….. but with the replies here
OSNews needs to have a retard filter.
Linux is FREE as in FREE speech. I CAN charge for a linux distor that I make. I can charge you £100 per disk if I feel like it. So what ?
What this is, is an expectation that companies who wish to use Linux in their name, should pay for it.
So what is $5000 from SuSE?
What is $5000 to Mandriva ?
Can RedHat afford to waste $5000 ?
fuck sake, get a life you muppets, get out of your basements and have a look around in the real world
“OSNews needs to have a retard filter.”
I sure agree with that! A lot of idiots who spout off without having a clue what a trademark means.
“OSNews needs to have a retard filter.”
Indeed it does.
Trademarks must be enforced, or they are lost. Good or bad, that’s the way the law works. And it is good for everyone but the scammers when names can’t be stolen and applied to something else.
Trademark law has “Fair Use” provisions. You do not need permission to use a trademark in a description, if the description uses the trademark accurately. If I call something Linux, and it *is* Linux, that’s OK. So I don’t need permission to say that I use Linux, or that my software runs on Linux.
But my descriptive use of the trademark isn’t allowed to create confusion or mislead. Calling a drink “Rum and Coke” is Fair Use of the Coke trademark, if I really use Coke, and not Pepsi. But calling it “Caribbean Coke” might mislead people into thinking that it was a product of the Coca Cola Company, violating their trademark. I could ask for their permission, or use a name that doesn’t infringe: “Caribbean Cola”.
I do need a license if I want to use the Linux trademark as part of my own trademark. I can’t call my company “Linux Compliance Labs” unless Linus says I can. I could name it “System Compliance Labs”, and describe the company’s services as including testing for compliance with Linux, though.
There’s no story here, folks. Shame on The Inquirer for attaching a false tag line (“Companies to be charged for free software”), and shame on OSnews for an equally false title. You don’t need to pay $5000 dollars to use the Linux name. You only need to pay if you want to use the Linux *trademark* as part of your own *trademark*, and the fee is $5000 only if you make more than a $1,000,000 on the product or service using that trademark.
While we may need a retard figure, since when is it OK to charge a lot for something if big companies can afford it? What if I’m just one person that wants to start my own distro? There’s no way I could afford the $5,000 so I can compete with people like Red Hat and Novel. A part of Linux’s freedom has been the freedom for any one person to take things into their own hands and fork. It would be pretty dumb to create a fork of something and not be allowed to use its name. If I start a Linux-based distro, it would be pretty helpful if I could use the word “Linux” in its name.
How about reading the fee’s associated for revenue related to products. You won’t be forced to pay $5k.
While we may need a retard figure, since when is it OK to charge a lot for something if big companies can afford it? What if I’m just one person that wants to start my own distro? There’s no way I could afford the $5,000 so I can compete with people like Red Hat and Novel. A part of Linux’s freedom has been the freedom for any one person to take things into their own hands and fork. It would be pretty dumb to create a fork of something and not be allowed to use its name. If I start a Linux-based distro, it would be pretty helpful if I could use the word “Linux” in its name.
You are an idiot. I don’t normally call names, but seriously, you are. You are so fucking lazy and stupid that you can’t even research before posting your drivel and crap. If you did take the 30 god damn seconds requird to view the fees page at linuxmark.org, you would see that you would be charged $200, not $5000. And by contacting LMI, you can have the fees lowered even more.
Why are there so many brain-dead people in this world???
“Why are there so many brain-dead people in this world???”
They are a large and growing clan… The trick is to not let them push you into a stroke or stomach ulcers.
There are WAY too many distro’s anyway – it wouldn’t bother me to see all this Live CD crapola go away.
Since Gates and the collusion that is the MPIAA & RIAA have made it impossible to listen to music or watch video on anything other than Windows or MAC (legally) in the very near future – i think Linux as a home desktop OS is doomed.
St. Linus is a grubby skunk like Bill or Steve. Worse! If I’d had any illusions , they’d be shattered. See how the cockroaches will scatter in the light.
Just who do you think “Solaris (TM)” and “OpenSolaris (TM)” is registered to, you nitwit?
Exactly:-) And nitwit, how long do you think you can call your company Solaris International or sell your product Blue Beret OpenSolaris for free?
I’m quoting John Hall’s comment from the Groklaw post because people here obviously haven’t bothered to follow the link in Japail’s very pertinent comment:
Since 1995, when an unfortunate incident in the United States showed us that the world is not made of altruistic people and companies, Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark. At that time an entity had obtained a US trademark on the word “Linux”, and was trying to obtain twenty-five percent of the REVENUES of companies that had the word “Linux” in their name, or in their product names. Instead of all the member companies fighting this battle individually, Linux International fought it and won. Unfortunately it cost us a lot of money to do this, despite the pro bono efforts of Gerry Davis, of the law firm of Davis and Schroeder.
Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark for the world, which due to the costs of registering and obtaining International Trade Marks is VERY expensive. Linux International has spent over 300,000 USD to do this over the years. LI is a non-profit and does not have very much revenue, so some of this money has come from my own personal checkbook. While I can not say how much money I have spent on defending the mark per se, I can tell you that I have spent about 250,000 USD of my own money in keeping LI alive. I am not looking for medals or a chest to pin them on. I am only stating this to show people that this is not a “scam”, nor is anyone making any money off this other than the international legal and trademark community, and I am sure that they are necessary and justifiable fees. Certainly Jeremy Malcolm has seemed to be above board and conscientious in all of our dealings with him, as has Jonathan Oxer and the rest of the fine people at LAI.
After a while the board of Linux International recognized the advantage of forming a separate non-profit, the Linux Mark Institute (LMI). We need LMI to be self-funding, and following trademark laws in the 200 countries of the world is very expensive.
It’s simple: unlike copyrights, trademarks are not granted automatically and require constant enforcement. Previous experience shows that people will try to cash in on the Linux trademark to make the products using the Linux name NON-FREE for everyone. Linux International goes to all the trouble of defending the Linux trademark in hundreds of countries around the world. Doing this is expensive. Hence the license fees.
For god’s sake. If Linus had been trying to cash in on Linux, he would have done it a long time ago. There are a whole bunch of other ways to go about it than to try to squeeze trademark license fees out of a few Australian companies!
For god’s sake. If Linus had been trying to cash in on Linux, he would have done it a long time ago.
Oh yes, I agree with you on Linus. If he was only after cash, then he would’ve used Linux as a cash cow much earlier.
There are a whole bunch of other ways to go about it than to try to squeeze trademark license fees out of a few Australian companies!
Yes, but this argument goes both ways– if it are just a few small Australian companies, and the money they want it neglicable, than why go after it?
We all know what money does with people– it makes people blind, (and 99.99% of the population is vulnerable to this) and clouds their judgement. Now, they’re asking for relatively small amounts, but if they start to see how easy it is to get money this way, it only takes one person “at the top”, blinded by the money, to enforce these fees to a far larger extent.
Get what I’m saying?
“Yes, but this argument goes both ways– if it are just a few small Australian companies, and the money they want it neglicable, than why go after it?”
Because, as has already been explained in this thread twenty times, you _have_ to go after it. Trademark law does not work like copyright law. If you do not enforce your trademark rights, you lose them.
“if it are just a few small Australian companies, and the money they want it neglicable, than why go after it? ”
Because of how the Trademark law are made up in Australia. Its going to be the same for BSD , I just hope someone from BSD is going to wake up to that fact , the one who owns the trademark there can charge any fee they like.
Actually , the funny thing is Linus Thorvalds and RMS are already millionaire , this group as a bigger budget then most newly formed company too , I think the 5k come from the standard fee for trademark in Australia and they dont whant to send the signal that the Linux Trademark is of lesser value.
Easy solution is for company to not use Linux in there name : ” Mandriva , SUSE , Red Hat. ” So you can spend 5k on development instead of trademark.
To maintain a trademark, you have to shut down every infringement. If you let someone use your trademark without permission, you lose the rights to the mark.
This is what’s happening with Linux(TM!). In order to maintain some control over what was called “Linux”, Linux trademarked it. This way no-one can claim to sell “Linux” or own “Linux”, or use the name for a different product (e.g. Sun calling Solaris “Linux Pro”).
The problem is that monitoring all those infringements, and chasing them, takes time and money. In some cases legal counsel is sought, in which case a lot of money is required. In order to offset the costs of all this, the Linux Mark Institute (LMI) was set up, and funded through the $5000 trademark fees (which really isn’t that high, it’s less than two Qt licenses).
Realistically, someone has to come up with the cash to protect the Linux name. This was the easiest and fairest way of doing that. In any event, this is quite old news, the whole thing was covered by lwn.net around two months ago.
Linux is trademaked since 1991 at not suspect time to became billionare with this brand, there was just a guy that wanted to protect his creature, and this is was he’s making.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989
Most of you need to go and actually RTFA. $5000 is the MAXIMUM that will be charged to a company using “Linux” in their name (or IIRC their product). This would mean that a company named “Red Hat”, for example, would *not* have to pay a fee, whereas a company named “Red Hat Linux” would indeed have to pay up.
Trademark law in most countries says that if you do not make attempts to protect your trademark you lose it. It’s by no means a malicious or money grabbing thing to do.
Why don’t they charge $0.01 for it? This all costs money. A fee ranging from $200 – $5000 would about cover the costs of maintaining the trademark without going overboard.
This whole trademark thing will not effect anyone who is not using the term “linux” in their company or product name. This means that, as usual, everyone’s still completely free to do what they like with the code (with the GPL’s restrictions), use it, copy it, distribute it, modify it, etc, without having to worry.
Anyone yelling “Oh, so it’s not free now!” or “OMG we’ve been betrayed!!111” needs to go chill out and then actually read the article and look up some basic trademark law.
“Yes, but this argument goes both ways– if it are just a few small Australian companies, and the money they want it neglicable, than why go after it?”
“Because, as has already been explained in this thread twenty times, you _have_ to go after it. Trademark law does not work like copyright law. If you do not enforce your trademark rights, you lose them.”
Since this cost money, someone has to pay for it to happen. Hence a non-profit organization is set up for this purpose. Making any costs, legal or otherwise in setting up licenses for the trademark, being paid for by the commercial interest wanting to use the trademark.
OMG there are so many clueless people in the world.
You can still use Linux for free. You will always be able to. The same goes for every single person on this bloody planet.
You just can’t shit into a bag and call it Linux, because that would be diluting the trademark. Due to trademark law, you also can’t fill a bag with pure gold and call it Linux because that is diluting the trademark. If a trademark becomes diluted, then nobody owns it and stores everywhere will be selling shit in bags labeled “Genuine Linux”.
However, if one is actually capable of coming up with an original name for their product (let’s call it
“KNEEJERKBITCHES”), they are free to advertize all over the planet and cosmos that KNEEJERKBITCHES contains Linux and that Linux is a registered trademark. They can do that because it is a statement of fact and protected by fair use.
Even if you are completely incapable of coming up with an original name, or just *have* to use the word Linux in the actual name of your product, all you have to do is pay a fee. If you didn’t have to pay a fee then the trademark would be diluted and we all know what that means. Oh, and if you got Linus’ written permission to use the Linux trademark before Aug. 1 2004, then you get to continue using it for free.
To sum up: If you think that Linus is doing anything even remotely evil here then you are ignorant. I didn’t call you stupid; you just have some reading on trademark law.
Unfortunately there is no additional information so I’m not sure what to make of this..
According to NewForge:
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/08/19/1842249.shtml?tid=2&tid=138“>…
“.. There is no fee for running Linux in your business. There is a charge, however, for using the Linux trademark in your business name.”
and
“This is not news. It’s been this way for years.”
E.
While we may need a retard figure
If we already had such a mechanism the rest of your post would have been targeted by it.
If you actually had bothered to read some of the previous comments(the highest rated ones at that, +1 and up). You would have learned that the price of the trademark are on a sliding scale based on revenue, the highest price being $5000. Making everything in your commnet void, and scoring rather high on the retard scale.
this is a message to morty….
do you not comprehend common english ?
I was not saying everyone had to pay $5000
I was giving what is known as an EXAMPLE
Now to everyone else here….
Sometimes I really do not know how some of you people manage to type two sentences together. you never make sense and never understand what other people are saying.
I know some of you not using english as your first language, and I always make allowances for that, but other people here need to get a fucking life
WTF ?!?!
“Nice one, assuming is for real.
PC-BSD, here I come…..”
Oh, its probably real. And the name PC-BSD is trademarked also:
PC-BSD and the PC-BSD Logo are trademarks of PC-BSD Software. All rights reserved.
http://www.pcbsd.org/?p=terms
I’m sure they are protective over their trademarks just as well. Have a nice day.
If a company uses the Linux trademark on a product that they themselves produce, then they have to get permission to us the trademark. It is not like Linus is trying to get money from all the people using Linux trademarked software.
This headline is very misleading:
Linus trademarks Linux
Companies to be charged for free software
After doing a bit of google-based research, it seems the maximum fee of $5000 applies to companies making more than $1,000,000 a year (so essentially 0.5%), and that the cash would be tasked to protecting the linux trademark from misuse (one of the articles I found cited an ex-porn site going by the name linuxchix as an example of this kind of misuse). So basically there is to be no cost to you unless you’re making a lot of money from using the linux trademark, and even then its only going to be a tiny fraction of your profits, and even then the cash is still going to be benefitting you by protecting the integrity of the name linux, which is something you’d want anyhow…..I don’t see much of a problem with this.
The other thing people seemed worried about comes from the fact that the lawyer linus has chosen to represent him seems to be a scientologist, and, as such, has been involved in some of their crackpot schemes in the past. However, this appears to be nothing more than pure coincidence – after all, he needed *someone* to represent him.
So in short – this doesn’t seem to be a hoax, but doesn’t seem to be some kind of mass cash-gouging conspiracy either.
Nothing is free, because somebody should pay once for it. This is very good commercial trick, once a product is not established and well-accepted on market, they seduce clients with low price or free product. Once you accept the product and turn to be dependent on it support and continuity, …, oops, you got sc..ed up as the company charges you for your free past and for everything else.
So dear Linux fans and fanboys and similars, though this case is not violation of GPL, as it deals with trademark, but you should be ready for payment for free in the future ….
But you’d rather to use Solaris, forget Linix …
Nothing is free, because somebody should pay once for it. This is very good commercial trick, once a product is not established and well-accepted on market, they seduce clients with low price or free product. Once you accept the product and turn to be dependent on it support and continuity, …, oops, you got sc..ed up as the company charges you for your free past and for everything else.
So dear Linux fans and fanboys and similars, though this case is not violation of GPL, as it deals with trademark, but you should be ready for payment for free in the future ….
But you’d rather to use Solaris, forget Linix …
Lol, you are so uninformed it is hilarious. You don’t need a license to use Linux or redistribute it. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you not understand how trademark law works? If not, please don’t comment anymore.
Red Hat includes the Linux Kernel in their product. Red Hat calls their product Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat has to pay the license fee.
Linspire includes the Linux Kernel in their product. Linspire calls their product Linspire. Linspire states that it uses Linux, but does not include the Linux name in their product or company name. This use of the Linux name is protected under fair use. Linspire does not have to pay the license fee.
Understand now?
And to state that companies using Linux have to pay this either shows you are a troll…or that you are just extremely ignorant.
God help me, but…. I can’t stand not to feed the troll.
RTFA! After that, try using your brains for a change.
“LinuxBlahBlah” requires fee.
“BlahBlah for Linux(TM) … Linux is a trademark of…” does not
But you’d rather to use Solaris, forget Linix …
first, it is Linux not Linix
Solaris trademark is licensed under the same trademark agreements as Linux trademark
“SolarisBlahBlah” requires paying trademark license fee.
“BlahBlah for Solaris(TM) … Solaris is a trademark of…” is free of license fee.
Where is the difference???
I guess he ia starting to feel dumb that everybody is making alot of cash except him.
Corporations and GREED, when you are not happy, money will not make you happy, just add more unhappy thoughts to the fire.
Good luck, you will need it.
Lawyers will be getting rich off this one!
“But according to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Open Sauce king is dead serious.”
“If Linux patented Linux that would certainly happen.”
The Enquirer needs an editor.
The one thing that surprises me is that it came unannounced…
It was not unnannounced. Linus, through the Linux Mark Institute, has been enforcing the trademark since 1996. In the US around this time, another individual trademarked Linux and began demanding 25% of the revenues of all companies using the name. Linus Torvalds and a few others sued this individual and won the trademark.
Linus received the trademark and wishes to hold the trademark so that this may never happen again. In order to continue holding the trademark, he must, under law, enforce the trademark.
In Australia, a company tried to trademark the name Linux. This is Linus’ response, to make sure that the same thing doesn’t happen all over again in Australia.
Now as for the fees, everyone here seems to forget that it costs money to enforce the trademark. Where does everyone think the trademark comes from, the trademark fairy? The money is to cover trademark filing fees, attourney’s fees, and even potential future litigation.
I would much rather have the current situation than another William De La Croce (guy whom Linus sued) situation.
I also would rather not have any random company calling their product Linux, even if it does not contain Linux.
People need to get a life. The people claiming Linus is evil without any proof to back up their claims are just trying to spread FUD, and have no clue what they are talking about.
There was a guy on this forum who posted that companies using Linux will have to pay this fee. This is a prime example of the FUD that is being slinged around over a non-issue.
Also, people really need to educate themselves about the differences between trademark, copyright and patent law. The knee-jerk reactions from a lot of people on this forum are one of the prime reasons the FSF rejects the term IP and instead refers to the respective laws by their official names.
Also, a few posts up, I said some really insulting things to someone who really didn’t deserve it (I called him an idiot and stupid). I am just saying this to apologize, I was just getting pissed off at the FUD being thrown around this forum. Many other posters deserved this comment much more than the person I directed it to. Sorry!
Linus is just cashing in on the “money”. I bet he really regrets not releasing the Linux kernel under the BSD license. You can twist the “we want to make sure people are getting a quality product if it has the name Linux in it” bullshit, but in the end, it’s all about money. It doesn’t matter whether Linus or some organisation gets it, it’s still about money. From 1993 to now, Linux distributions have survived, and there’s been no issues. Does Linus now feel that Linux has made the big time, and has enough momentum now to stop innovation by holding or decreasing the number of Linux distributions out there?
This is just a further push of the corporate enhancement of Linux, the same as the new “development model” of the 2.6 kernels, where distributions are expected to make the kernel stable, not the kernel developers. The 2.6 kernels have been the most unstable kernels I can remember. Linux is now being controlled by the corporations, and us, the little guys, the guys who used Linux and supported Linux when the big corporations didn’t give a fuck, are now being forgotten about and given the palm off. I don’t like this one iota. The Linux kernel is nothing without the GNU/FSF/GPL tools that accompany it I might add.
GNU/Hurd is looking nicer every day.
Dave
Have you even read any of the articles or the comments? Linus does not _get_ any of this money. It goes to a non-profit which has been set up for the _sole purpose_ of defending the Linux trademark. All the money it receives can, legally, _only_ be used for the purpose of defending the Linux trademark. How can anyone be ‘cashing in’?
How do you _know_ there’ve been ‘no legal issues’? Do you spend your days searching for products which use the word ‘Linux’ in their name without proper permission? Are you a lawyer? Is this your business? No? Then it’s really not something you can talk about, is it?
Quote: “Have you even read any of the articles or the comments?”
I’ve read the Groklaw article on it yet, which was posted six or so days ago.
Quote: “Linus does not _get_ any of this money.”
Not yet. Call me a sceptic. Politicians aren’t meant to get bribes either, but they do.
Quote: “It goes to a non-profit which has been set up for the _sole purpose_ of defending the Linux trademark.”
There is absolutely no need for this fund – the simple answer to the problem is to grant Linus the ownership of the Linux trademark in regards to usage in software and computer items. If he sees an infringement, then it’s up to him to sue. Extorting money from the community that has made his kernel so popular is nothing more than blackmail.
Quote: “How do you _know_ there’ve been ‘no legal issues’?”
Like in anything these days, Lawyers love to sue. I’m sure there’s been issues.
Quote: “Do you spend your days searching for products which use the word ‘Linux’ in their name without proper permission?”
No, I don’t. And doing what they’re doing is going right against the core themes of open source. I hope Microsoft decides to make a distro named “Microsoft Linux” and decides that it doesn’t have pay this “toll fee”. It’ll show what a stupid idea and non-community idea this really is.
Quote: “Are you a lawyer?”
No, are you?
Quote: “Is this your business?”
No, is it yours?
Quote: “Then it’s really not something you can talk about, is it?”
Ah, so what you’re really saying is, “I don’t like your comments and I don’t think you’re qualified to have an opinion, so shut up”. Have I paraphrased your last sentence satisfactorily? I think so.
As I said in my previous post, GNU/Hurd is starting to look very nice indeed.
Dave
There is absolutely no need for this fund – the simple answer to the problem is to grant Linus the ownership of the Linux trademark in regards to usage in software and computer items. If he sees an infringement, then it’s up to him to sue. Extorting money from the community that has made his kernel so popular is nothing more than blackmail.
Yet another uninformed moron. Linus DOES own the Linux trademark. Linus WANTS people to be able to use the Linux name. He does so by LICENSING the name to corporations. LICENSING something needs to be done PROPERLY. In order to do it PROPERLY, a LAWYER needs to be involved to draft up the legal documents. A LAWYER needs to eat, and to do this, CHARGES his clients MONEY. This MONEY has to come from somewhere.
Linus can’t just let everyone use the trademark and sue when someone he doesn’t like uses it. By allowing people like Red Hat to use the trademark without licensing it, he will lose the trademark.
Do you understand now?
You can already make money using Linux without using the Linux name. What more do you want, you selfish person? Do you want the shirt off of his back for free? Or is being able to leech his trademarked name and then having the nerve to expect him to pay out of his own pocket to defend the name that other companies are getting rich off of enough for you?
I’m all for free software, and run Linux exclusively on my computer, but really, you people disgust me.
I can play the modding game as well AdamW and RM6990. I can get friends to even play the modding game as well, if you really want to play that way. It’s not hard. Enjoy.
Dave
Actually, I have only modded down trolls on this site, not misinformed people. I have merely rebutted their arguements. Unless, of course, AdamW and myself are the only readers on this site with mod points….yes, that must be it!!!
Fucking moron.
Plus, if you want to play that way, I was granted extra mod points, which OSNews said they would grant to certain readers who use them wisely. I currently have 23.
You really want to play that game? I could if I was immature mod every single one of your comments down, and if I really wanted to be childish, I could have my friends join in, but I am a bigger man than you so I won’t bother
Ah. OK. So _you_ think it’s Linus’ job to spend his entire working life monitoring, heck, I don’t know, the entire internet and retail channels in 200 countries for commercial infringement of his trademark, then sue each case he finds using, what, the money he won from the fricking Lotto? LITIGATION IS EXPENSIVE. You don’t get trademarks from the Trademark Fairy and you don’t _defend_ them via the Litigation Fairy. You hire a lawyer. Lawyers are not cheap.
LINUS IS A HACKER, a tech guy, a project manager. He’s not a freaking paralegal. Sheesh, get a grip.
Quote: “There is absolutely no need for this fund – the simple answer to the problem is to grant Linus the ownership of the Linux trademark in regards to usage in software and computer items. If he sees an infringement, then it’s up to him to sue. Extorting money from the community that has made his kernel so popular is nothing more than blackmail. ”
You are mistaken. There has been a need in the past. There is a need to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
I’ll post an old press release below so maybe you’ll understand how this all came to be. Notice who footed the bill last time. If you can’t understand what they are tyring to do then enjoy using Hurd. I’ll stick with Slackware I think.
———————–
Press Release
Monterey, California, August 20, 1997–A long standing dispute over ownership of the Linux operating system trademark has just been resolved. As a result of litigation brought by a group of five Linux companies and individuals against William R. Della Croce, Jr. of Boston, Massachusetts, Della Croce has assigned ownership for the registered mark to Linux Torvalds, the original author of Linux, as part of the settlement agreement.
The plaintiffs in the suit were Linus Torvalds; Specialized Systems Systems Consultants, Inc. (Linux Journal) of Seattle; Yggdrasil computing, Inc. in San Jose; Linux International, Amherst, NH; and Work Group Solutions of Aurora, CO. Non-plaintiffs Red Hat Software, Inc., Metro Link Inc. and Digital Equipment Corporation supported the litigation and contributed to the cost of the litigation.
The five plaintiffs brought suit against Della Croce in the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, in November 1996. Della Croce had obtained registration of the Linux mark in September 1995, which created a storm of protests by the Linux community, who felt the mark belonged to Torvalds or the Linux community and not to any individual. In an attempt to correct the situation, the plaintiffs retained the internationally known intellectual property law firm of Davis & Schroeder of Monterey, California, who handled the case on a greatly reduced fee bases, as a service to the Linux community.
The five plaintiffs, through their attorneys, announced today that (1) the matter has been settled by the assignment of the mark to Linus Torvalds, on behalf of all Petitioners and Linux users, and the dismissal with prejudice of the pending PTO Cancellation Proceeding; and (2) that Respondent was reimbursed for his trademark filing fees and costs by Petitioners. The other terms of the Settlement Agreement are confidential.
“This is just a further push of the corporate enhancement of Linux”
Linux getting corporate support is a good thing, otherwise it could end up like SkyOS or YellowTAB Zeta, hobby projects with no future.
“The 2.6 kernels have been the most unstable kernels I can remember.”
That is not my experience. Besides ordinary users don’t download kernels from kernel.org, they use the ones provided by their distro.
Quote: “Linux getting corporate support is a good thing,”
I couldn’t give a shit if Linux gets corporate support, in fact I’d prefer it didn’t. Corporate support buys people. I’d rather not have them dictating the development of a open source project thanks.
Quote: “That is not my experience.”
Well, that’s mine. And many others that I know. The public kernels are at http://www.kernel.org, and they should remain stable, just as they were with the 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 series kernel trees. Stable. We now have a unstable tree morphed into the stable tree. The idea of having distros “stabilising” the kernel is ludicrous. When are the smaller distros going to be able to:
a. afford kernel developers?
b. have staff experienced with kernel internals, itself not an easy thing to be au fait with?
This type of approach will eventually kill the smaller distros, leaving on the big ones, guess what, the ones that have “corporate” support. The direction of the Linux kernel will change, and it’ll suit the corporations, and not the community that has pushed Linux into being a reasonably well known name today.
Mark my words, nothing but bad for the community will come out of this.
Dave
Well, that’s mine. And many others that I know. The public kernels are at http://www.kernel.org, and they should remain stable, just as they were with the 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 series kernel trees. Stable. We now have a unstable tree morphed into the stable tree. The idea of having distros “stabilising” the kernel is ludicrous. When are the smaller distros going to be able to:
a. afford kernel developers?
b. have staff experienced with kernel internals, itself not an easy thing to be au fait with?
That’s the beauty of the GPL.
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/4AS/en/os…
The distro maker, if it wants to, can make some modifications and can then use the RHEL kernel. Have a nice day
This is a message toraver31
I do comprehend common English rather well, even if I do make some errors when writing. As it is not my first language, but I try to improve. And I both understood your example, and agreed to some of that you wrote.
You on the other hand have a slight problem with treading and remembering your own words. The RE[2] in the heading should have told you together with the italics that I was not quoting you, but someone replying to your comment.
Folowing the example of the parent I also add this section.
Now to everyone else here….
If people actually start using their moderation points on increasing the score of usefull comments, rather than trying to remove the ones you don’t like. Browsing at +1 or 2 will actually give meaningfull reading, rather than having to read all the nonsens ending up at 0.
If people actually start using their moderation points on increasing the score of usefull comments, rather than trying to remove the ones you don’t like. Browsing at +1 or 2 will actually give meaningfull reading, rather than having to read all the nonsens ending up at 0.
Indeed. However, there is a bit of a paradox with that. If everyone reads at a +1 or higher filter, then none of the 0-rated posts will ever get read, so none of them get moderated up, so there will be no posts at +1 (except Thom’s perhaps), so we can all go home…
Quote: “rather than trying to remove the ones you don’t like”
Yeah, we have a few modders playing around now on this thread it appears. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens on /., and to be frankly honest, it doesn’t do good for osnews.com’s reputation by employing such a similar method. You get modded down not because of a bad post, but because you’ve dared question something that needed questioning, rather than ‘going with the flow’ that the rest of the village idiots seem to do.
Dave
I work for a trademark company in Australia and just did a search on who owns “Linux” as a trademark in Australia.
Currently, Linus does not have the trademark “Linux”. His trademark application is currently under examination and had an adverse report filed against it meaning that the trademark office has an objection to his application and will not grant the trademark unless that objection is overcome.
It will be difficult for Linux to get the trademark because various companies has already got registered trademarks similar to “Linux” in the same class. Examples are:
– TURBOLINUX
– Hong Qi-Linux
– Clinux
This reminds me of the Nextel brouhaha in the US. For years the communications industry used PTT to refer to Push-To-Talk on two-way communications. Then Nextel came along and trademarked it for their “new” feature on their wireless network. Now the rest of the industry is forced to either pay a fee or use P2T to refer to the same function…
I see no problem with trademark fees, as long as they’re owned by the originator of the product.
It is a sad fact, maybe, but if Linus did not do this, he would lose the name to someone who would do it. We live in a world where Amazon can patent a one-click purchase; Linus has no choice.
I don’t think $5000 isn’t to much for a a company that makes millions a year on their Linux services AND uses the Linux brand name to generate business.
Even more relevant is the requirement of trademark law that you have to actively license your trademark if you want to be able to protect it from being used for less than honorable purposes.
Check out article.php?story=20050816092029989 for the whole story.
OK guys, normally I read the comments on OSNews, but I am so disgusted by the lack of ability of the first couple posters to actually RTFA and any other information that I can’t bear it.
Linus trademarked Linux to protect the Linux name. Linus HAS TO enforce these trademarks, or else he loses them. He has no choice in the matter. Without them, any company, including Microsoft, could call products that don’t even contain the kernel Linux.
And this is another case of OSNews making a flamebait title. Linus does not demand $5000 automatically. The fees start at $200, not $5000. Only very high profit companies have to pay this amount. I suppose the OSNews editors were too lazy to actually research the topic before posting this crap?
An easy way around this is to not use the Linux name. Knoppix does this, Xandros does this, Linspire does this and numerous others do.
You DO NOT need a license to include the Linux Kernel in your distro. You can call Linux Linux all you want without paying the fee. It is only if you use it in a commercial name (Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, etc.) that you need to pay the name. If I called my distro Rm6990 OS and in the docs said it included Linux, I DO NOT need a license. If I call it Rm6990 Linux, I DO need a license. See the difference??? Both products include Linux, yet I am not paying a license for one. This is a trademark matter, not a copyright matter. Apparently the poster who commented on SCO code in Linux is too dumb to notice the difference.
For anyone who wants to read the truth about this matter go to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989
PJ supports this idea. And I’m sure she is much more informed that a bunch of OSNews readers who can’t even make it through a simple article without feeling the need to post uninformed comments such as “Maybe there is SCO code in Linux”.
Also, just so everyone knows, the Free Software Foundation owns the trademark to GNU and does not sublicense it under ANY condition. This is much more restrictive than the Linux trademark.
if the term “GNU/Linux” is used?
Anonymous wrote: if the term “GNU/Linux” is used?
You still don’t understand it. You don’t need to pay $5000 every time you type Linux on your keyboard. It only affects you if your product’s or company’s name explicitly contains the word Linux. And even then the license fee is yearly, starts at $200, and is proportional to the money you make. You can have a product running Linux and not pay a single cent. You can even mention Linux in the documentation for free.
[Needed Humor]
Everyone who understands what’s going on here, and I think I do thanks to the links posted back in the beginning:
Let’s just shutup for a day and let them troll on about how Linus doesn’t love freedom but wants to whore money and so on and so forth. And then, post the links showing what they’re actually doing! They’ve already got their foot in their mouth, but let’s catch them with both feet jammed way down their throat!
[/Needed Humor]
it is better if you are paid for it.
I have read most of the posts here and the article but I am still stunned that Linus or his agents would be asking money for use of the Linux trademark. I understand the rationale; it would be quite natural for a for-profit company that depends on recognition of their brand name for sales to pursue trademark protection; however, Linux is not the sole creation of Linus.
The very corporations that would be paying the most have made some of the most substantial contributions to the Linux kernel. The same is true for the many distributions which have made linux accessible to so many by innovations in packaging, or installation, or their unique customizations. Why, oh why, should Debian, Gentoo, or even a for-profit company like RedHat have to pay for using the trademarked Linux name in their names???? It is insane. The paid folks in these companies as well as the many volunteers working on GNU/Linux projects have no problem in acknowledging Linus’ contribution to Linux, but to have to pay Linus or his lawyers to use the Linux name which they have made so valuable is not fair.
To those who would argue that the Linux brand needs protection from those who would usurp it to market pornography, (or worse Windows!), I reply: who gives a #$%! Why does Linus give a damn about Linuxchix, Linuxgangbangers, Linux_does_Beastie Videos, or the possibility of a “MacLinux:It Just Works”? The linux porn theme is just ridiculous and anyone with half a brain and can read would be able to discern what is the genuine article and what is not.
A simple written acknowledgment of Linus’ contribution to the kernel with every distribution should suffice. Making distributions and the companies that have popularized and eased the use of Linux to pay for use of the Linux name is preposterous, and very concerning that worse things may come. To those that have expressed concern about this development, I am definitely with you. This is indeed an ominous development.
What about having some other loser trademark Linux and charge everyone for it, at a much less reasonable rate? Oh, wait, that happened already, which is why this is being done.
Linus has to enforce the trademark. What do you not understand about that? The fees are to cover the costs of protecting the trademark.
Oh, and should Red Hat not be able to prevent people from using their name since Red Hat’s products are not their sole creation?
Red Hat is a brand name of a for-profit company that distributes an enterprise level product with unique packaging and installation software as well as package testing. As such it is understandable that it would want to vigorously protect their trademark on which it depends for its existence.
But linux…well, what is linux? Does it belong to Linus? Maybe, the trademark does, and maybe no one paid attention when he first applied for a trademark, but what is the message he is sending to the thousands of contributors who made linux the valuable item it is? Did Linus confer with the community in any way at all? Is this really the only way to assure that the linux name is “protected” from anyone else who would want to use it for less savory ends. I would really be interested in hearing from a reader who actually has some expertise in this area rather than repetitious assertions that the Linux trademark “needs” to be protected based on the limited understanding of the law from journalists who only repeat the assertions of the lawyers who have a vested interest in litigation and extortion.
But linux…well, what is linux? Does it belong to Linus? Maybe, the trademark does, and maybe no one paid attention when he first applied for a trademark, but what is the message he is sending to the thousands of contributors who made linux the valuable item it is? Did Linus confer with the community in any way at all? Is this really the only way to assure that the linux name is “protected” from anyone else who would want to use it for less savory ends. I would really be interested in hearing from a reader who actually has some expertise in this area rather than repetitious assertions that the Linux trademark “needs” to be protected based on the limited understanding of the law from journalists who only repeat the assertions of the lawyers who have a vested interest in litigation and extortion.
Enjoy
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/19/0828245.shtml
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/article/2559
Thanks for the links. That was quite informative. What a nasty little fellow, this William R. Della Croce, Jr!
I hope people read Linus’ comments about the trademark issue. I think it may put a lot of minds at ease. He seems genuinely interested in protecting the integrity of the commununity and its efforts.
can they really do this?
The problem is that people do not associate Linux with just the OS kernel. What they wish to be selling by using the brand name is the entire operating system — which linus has no right to claim ownership of. It would be cool if this prompted other capitalist fiends to trademark similar names like Gimix and sell “Linux” and “Linux services.”
All that is happening here is that Linus and Maddog Hall are setting up the LMI to protect the trademarked name “Linux” from ripoff artists who might appropriate it under trademark law if it is not defended, and then charge EXCESSIVE fees to use the name.
This was attempted by some bozo in 1995. The name has been trademarked for years and Linux International and Maddog spent a lot of money defending the trademark to this point.
Now they are asking the community to ante up to support the defense. This is to the advantage of anybody using the NAME “Linux” to promote or identify their product.
The fees range from ZERO if you’re “grandfathered in” to a maximum of $5000 if you’re generating half a million or more in revenue from your product that uses the Linux trademark.
None of this has any effect on Linux CODE under the GPL. This is strictly related to the NAME “Linux” under trademark law.
Trademark law gives Linus no third alternative – he HAS to enforce his trademark or lose it. That would leave it available for some creeps like SCO to appropriate it and attach it to code that isn’t even vaguely Linux.
There is nothing stopping the LMI from waiving fees in exchange for a Sublicense Agreement for cases where even the $200 annual fee for “non-profits” is too hard to pay.
All the breast-beating is completely pointless.
An article on Groklaw explains it all reasonably well.
“…what is linux? Does it belong to Linus? ”
Linus own the copyright to some of the source code, and the trademark to the name.
“…no one paid attention when he first applied for a trademark”
False. He didn’t apply, a scammer applied for the trademark, and it was big news. Probably before your time, though. Other people involved with Linux filed suit to take the trademark away from the scammer and give it to Linus. They won. Linus hadn’t wanted to file for trademark registration, but the episode showed him that he really did need to own the trademark or it would be abused.
“Did Linus confer with the community in any way at all?”
Yes, he did. Check for coverage back in ’96, ’98, or whenever it was. I’m pretty sure that the suit was settled by ’98, but may have begun much earlier.
“Is this really the only way to assure that the linux name is “protected” …”
Yes, it is. If you don’t protect a trademark, it becomes invalid. Then anyone could call anything Linux. Enforcing the trademark costs money; scammers won’t go away because you asked nicely, they need to stomped on in court. The original case shows that quite clearly. William Della Croce filed for a trademark on Linux, and he wanted 25% of all revenues from anyone using the name. Not profits, revenues. And he had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Linux. The only way to stop his extortion was to sue him and transfer the trademark. That cost money, even though the lawyers donated their services. They won, and the court transferred the trademark to Linus.
The only people who need to pay to license the Linux trademark are those who want to use it as part of their own trademarks. Most other uses of the word fall under Fair Use. I’m willing to bet that you can’t find a single company or person who *needs* to pay who doesn’t *want* to pay. Most already have perpetual licenses, and aren’t required to pay ever again. Anyone using Linux in a trademark from before it was registered should have asked for permission years ago, and would have gotten it. I doubt that any non-profits were ever asked to pay a dime.
New organizations that don’t want to pay can simply avoid using Linux in their trademarks. It costs you nothing to use Linux as a description. “LinuxSuperSmasher(R)” would pay. “SuperSmasher(R) for Linux(R)” wouldn’t. Keep your trademark separated from Linus’, and you should be fine. You can’t mislead people that what you have is Linux when it isn’t, or that Linus has endorsed it if he hasn’t.
Yes, the facts do need to be repeated over and over. Because the FUD is repeated over and over. A strong Linux trademark is good for everyone but those who want to rip off the name, or those who want to hurt Linux.
*nix *nux *indows
What’s left now?
*acOSX *reeBSD *pache
hahahhaha guess Linus likes his PowerMac so much he wants 90 of them.
LOL
And people wonder why I compare the Open source community to the “Dirty {censored} hippies” episode of South Park.
Before I start, yes I *HAVE* RTFA’d, so do not jump all over me.
Yes, Linus must defend the trademark to keep it. But, the costs squeeze out the little guys. Sure, Red Hat, Novell, Mandrake have the money to pony up thousands of dollars per year, and the larger non-profit orgs such as Gentoo and Debian can easily come up with their $200 license fee. But, for a small distribution that someone is simply producing for fun, or as a learning experience, it’s impossible.
For example, for well over a year, a friend and myself have been planning to start our own distribution, named BE-Linux (Bleeding Edge Linux), mostly to scratch my own itch to use the absolute newest stuff possible, at the sacrifice of stability. Personally, I don’t care if anyone else ever uses it – I want to do it for myself, and my friend, and anyone else who might share the same desires that we do.
I chose this name because of it’s descriptive nature of what we’re attempting to do – a Bleeding Edge Linux distribution. But, now, I realize that I can no longer use this name, because I have limited funds available, and can not afford to drop $200 every year to license the name Linux.
IANAL, but I can’t help thinking there must be some provision in law for situations like this. Common usage of the term Linux today is a software distribution based on the Linux kernel. There must be SOME way to allow OS’s based on the Linux kernel to use the term Linux in a descriptive way without dilution of the trademark.
If there’s not, then the little guy like me is locked out, and that’s not good for the community.
“…can not afford to drop $200 every year…”
Ask. The way I read it, LMI is saying that the MOST that they will charge a non-profit is $200. They can always charge less. Make your case to them.
If that doesn’t work, then ask the community for donations. I’ve seen plenty of stories about successful fund raisers for FOSS projects.
At worst, you could change the name to Bleeding Edge Distribution, or something along those lines.
You do realize that it is the uncontrolled common usage that threatens the trademark? If you use “Linux” as part of your trademark, then you need to sign an agreement with LMI. They’d like to cover the cost of doing that, but that’s not the real issue. The real issue is that people shouldn’t be using “Linux” as part of a trademark without signing that agreement. I’m sure that the money can be worked out, as long as the signed agreement happens.
You can, of course, use “Linux” in a description. No money or permission needed for that. Using it in a name, usually the name of an organization, product, or service, that’s using it as a trademark. Use makes a name a trademark, registration just adds legal muscle to the trademark.
I see nothing wrong with “The Bleeding Edge Project, for those who want the latest developments in Linux(R).” Your trademark would be “The Bleeding Edge Project”. Linux is used to describe, under Fair Use. Keep his trademark and your trademark separated, and note that “Linux is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds.” Then there’s no impression that you are claiming the Linux trademark as your own.
$200 is an annoyance to the community, and one that can be solved. Losing the Linux trademark would be a disaster for the community.
It sounds good to say they’ll be reasonable but the Linux Mark Institute says they can’t negotiate &, if they do, you’ll have to pay their costs, as well as your own! It’s essentially take it or leave it:
“What if I don’t like the terms of the SUBlicense?
Unless it can be demonstrated that there’s an error in the sublicense form or that it is commercially unreasonable in your situtation, the terms are not negotiable; LMI doesn’t have manpower or money to negotiate various individual sublicenses. The fees are set at such a low level that the costs of making and tracking modifications are in most cases prohibitive. If any changes are to be made in the sublicense, and that is unlikely, the applicant will be required to pay all legal costs incurred by the Institute in discussing and/or making any modifications. Therefore, please do not ask for changes unless there is some critical reason for doing so. We do not expect to make many exceptions.”
The law, alas, has a logic of its own. Once you start out down this road, you never quite know where you will end up. That was the very badly-put point of an earlier post — which meant to portray the logical endpoint (not the present reality) of the effort as Linus (i.e., the LMI) assessing LUGs. If a LUG put out a distribution under their name (if it included Linux) or allowed downloads from a website with the Linux name on it, would they need to pay? At the least, the uncertainty would tend to deter such efforts, as posts in this thread suggest.
So don’t put the word Linux in your distribution name! Plenty of popular distros don’t use the word Linux in their name. And as was already said, it says right on the LMI site to call and try and arrange a deal if you can’t afford the license.
What do you expect, they feed your children while giving you free name recognition? Because that’s what putting linux in your title gets you: Name recognition.
so… according to the groklaw article, this is necessary becaus otherwise anyone could come along and steal the word, or use the word in a bad and misleading way (i.e. microsofts “java”), and instead of fighting it in an intelligent counterculture way like the grand and majestic “fuck you, i wont fight and steal and keep secrets from my fellow man” the GPL is to copyright law and the modern capatilist trap we increasingly find ourselves in, they’ve just decided to charge for licences instead.
I have to say im extremely dissapointed, and it seems that sentament is shared by many others here as well. I can understand if Linus wants to get rich, thats cool, i would have put a tenner or so in a fund for him if he asked, and im sure millions of others would have too, but this feels like a cheap and commercalist ploy. I guess linux really has grown up and were in that “we need to play by the adults rules cause were big kids now” bullshit is starting to apply.
I think what needs to happen is we need to invent a new name, a different name. Let the FOSS decide on what it should be. Let whoever wants to licence the name pay him, so he can cover the “enforcement” costs, i hope he gets rich, whatever he wants, he seemed to have a pretty tough time at transmeda(?). But lets not all be sucked in by this hussling, nor raise the barrier to entry by such a standard.
I can understand if Linus wants to get rich
You are rather dense are you not?
Your first and biggest mistake, the LMI are set up as an not-for-proffit organization. If such an organization for some reason actually starts to generate proffit, and they take that proffit out of the organization the IRS or equivalent will jump all over them. Most likely sending most of the participants to court for embezzlement, tax fraud and other kinds of economic missconduct.
Second mistake are simply the money involved, it’s a pittance. The reports say something like no more than 90 entities in Australia where all this occurs. Even if all of them have to pay the biggest fee, which they don’t, you won’t make much money of it. You have to set up the contracts and follow the correct legal procedures, all this requires lawyers which don’t work for free. Then you have to pay for paralegals to watch for missuse of the trademark and all other administrative costs you uneventfully will have. Not even factoring in the added cost of potential having to take scampers to court. You will generate very little if any profit at all. In the end you have a setup generating minimal profit in a very small market. If more than 1000-2000 wordwide need this I’ll be very surprised, remember most of the existing businesses already have the rights to use the trademark(Red Hat etc.)
yep, youre right, i see what you mean. i got it wrong and was being a little emotional and a little dense.
can you clarify one thing for me though – does this only apply if you use the word linux in the name of the product, or does it also apply if you put it in a tagline or a description, etc? Say mepis came in a box with the tagline “a linux distrobution”, would they then have to pay the fee? Would they be able to describe themselves as “a linux distribution”, or would that be infringement?
so essentially, this is technique is just to prove the quality of the trademark, so no one can use it maliciously against linux? If the example you use of symphonyos and small distros like mepis and ark are exempt (because they’re not called mepislinux or arklinux) then im cool with it.
Thom, you are a quasi-journalist who helps spreading misinformation. I bet you’d have handled it different when it were about your favorite OS. Idiot.
To read article text
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/linus-backs-trademark-charge-sa…
Username / password: cypherpunk
Linus backs trademark charge, says ‘Maddog’
By Sam Varghese
August 19, 2005 – 1:48PM
Trademarking the Linux name and charging for its commercial use world-wide is supported by its creator Linus Torvalds, a senior Linux community figure from the US says.
A recent letter sent to nearly 90 Australian companies, demanding payment of a sub-licence fee that can range from $A200 to $A5000 for use of the Linux name, caused considerable confusion and prompted speculation the fee was a scam.
But in an attempt to clarify the situation in Australia, Jon ‘Maddog’ Hall, the executive director of Linux International in the US, said a community organisation called Linux Australia had been nominated to handle the trademark issue in this country.
The Linux Mark Institute (LMI) handles trademark issues in the US. In other countries it nominates local bodies to look after things, he said.
Linux is a popular, free open-source operating system that runs on a number of hardware platforms, including PCs and Macintoshes.
Hall said while Torvalds and the LMI did not object to people using the Linux name for legitimate purposes, there were some who tried to limit or block other peoples’ business by creating bogus trademark registries.
“We are not blocking anyone’s business. If there is a single business out there that is blocked by this issue, please have them contact me,” he said.
When asked how open source advocates could fight against the legitimising of software patents and yet charge fees for a trademark, Mr Hall said you couldn’t create a product covered by a patent unless you licences it; with a trademark you could change the name and still sell the product.
“You certainly could create and distribute a useful product without having ‘Linux’ in the trademarked name,” he said. “Debian comes to mind. Red Hat Software is another.”
Linux Australia president Jonathan Oxer said while patents could stop people from doing the same thing, such as writing a piece of software that was functionally equivalent, trademarks regulated people who wanted to use an identity. “In effect, it’s a measure to prevent identity theft,” he said.
“Patents can be anti-competitive (or at least anti-productive) in the software world by preventing other people competing on a level playing field. They are specifically intended to grant a limited monopoly.”
Oxer said trademarks did not prevent fair competition. “They don’t stop anyone else going into business and doing the exact same thing as an existing company. What they do prevent is someone stealing the name of an existing product or company and then using that name to their benefit.”
Hall said while the LMI could, in some cases, refuse to grant a sub-licence for use of the name, Torvalds had the final say.
“He is the owner of the mark, it is his name. But my experience has been that Linus views this as him holding the mark for the community,” he said.
The highest fee in the US is $US5000. “While to some the $US5000 fee may seem like a lot to pay on $US1 million of revenue, we point out that it is only on the revenue generated by the trademarked product, not the whole company (unless the whole company is called ‘Linux XXXXXXX’), and there is no upper limit to the revenue that could be made,” Hall said.
“We are not trying to limit the use of the name Linux. We are only asking that people help us protect the quality of the Linux name, and ultimately their trademark by both giving proper attribution (everyone) and by helping us fund the cause (the actual sub-licence holders),” he said.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989
Read it. Much better than the poor journalism by Thom Holwerda and Inquirer. This website, as a bunch of BeOS and OSX zealots, sucks.
If you do not defend your trademark you lose it so it’s not like he has a choice in the matter. Everything with the brand of linux reflects on him. 5k is just a paltry token sum.
If you’ve spent a lot of time working on a project (open source or not) and the name of your project has become synomous with good quality, the last thing you want is some dork slapping the name of your project on some POS he threw together in order to boost his sales. Then your project starts taking a hit due to circumstances beyond your controll.
Besides, $5000 is spare change for companies that are serious about making a good quality product.
The OSNews title, while factually correct, is designed to create controversy as it presents the news in a very dramatic – and negative – way. And it does so in the first three words of the title. A more neutral (but longer) title would have been something like:
“Torvalds enforces Linux trademark in Australia”
By saying “Torvalds demands $5000”, the title leaves the impression that this Linux is unreasonably trying to make a retroactive quick buck on those who have used its name.
The Inquirer is also misleading in its title “Linus trademarks Linux”, because in fact the Linux trademark has been established some years ago. But the worst error in the Inquirer story, and one that should be reported to the editors, is the hook, unfortunately published “as is” by OSNews:
“More than 90 Australian companies have been asked to pay a licence fee for Linux software”
I think that the use of an intro such as:
The Inquirer reports: “More than 90 Australian companies have been asked to pay a licence fee for Linux software…etc”
would be a lot safer to use.
Say mepis came in a box with the tagline “a linux distrobution”, would they then have to pay the fee?
No, they does not have to pay anything in that case. As this comes under fair use, in this case it is only a statement of fact. They perhaps should add some (TM) symbols and a acknowledge like “Linux is trademark of….”, the same way as with any other trademark used in this way. Take a look at how non Microsoft windows program are labled, exactly the same thing. Except no one can buy a license to use MS Windows in their name.
“The OSNews title, while factually correct, is designed to create controversy as it presents the news in a very dramatic – and negative – way.”
The OSNews title is not factually correct. It is sensational and factually incomplete thus incorrect. It is misinformation. The fact is, Torvalds does NOT ask for $5000 for the use of the trademark. He has a scheme; only under the ‘worst’ circumstance you have to pay 5.000. Quote from Groklaw:
“Non-Profit Tier
When Sun Microsystems would have released a new SPARC system and you’d say: “New Sun SPARC servers cost $100.000” while that is the most expensive version then that is inaccurate as well. Same here.Annual Fee = US$200
Then again, what would one expect from an anti-Linux website and an anti-Linux reporter? He wrote the article to the link entirely himself and did not bother to research more or to wait for more research.For Profit/Other Tier 1
[This is a “grandfather clause” for written sublicenses executed prior to August 1, 2004] Annual Fee = $0
For Profit/Other Tier 2
[Total projected annual gross revenue between zero and US $100,000] Annual Fee = US $200
For Profit/Other Tier 3
[Total projected annual gross revenue between US $100,000 and US$200,000] Annual Fee = US $500
For Profit/Other Tier 4
[Total projected annual gross revenue between US $200,000 and US $1 million] Annual Fee = US $1000
For Profit/Other Tier 5
[Total projected annual gross revenue over US $1 million] Annual Fee = US $5000″