Red Hat 7.2 B2 comments (rant)

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

At one point, an Boston attorney registered the name, Linux, and sent 
letters to many of those companies who were using the Linux name. Linux 
International sued the attorney and was able to acquire the trademark based 
on prior use. 
There are many interesting cases on trademarks. And some companies are 
paranoid. I knew some people who worked for Johnson and Johnson. When 
referring to a BandAid, employees were trained that they must use the full 
name of the product, something like "Band Aid brand plastic strip". At one 
point, "aspirin" was a trade mark, but it became generic and the trademark 
owner was forced to give it up. Microsoft at one point tried to trademark 
the term, Windows. 
On 3 Sep 2002 at 13:34, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> 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 at 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-----
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Associate Director
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9