On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:20:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On 6/17/05, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> wrote: > > Raul Miller wrote: > > >Reading the LMI site, they're only requiring a license on > > >uses of Linux which are not labelling OS software. > > Maybe you misread it. According to the license terms, "AUTHORIZED > > GOODS/SERVICES", including software, do require a license. > I don't think that's valid a valid interpretation. > Linux already has already been established as meaning the linux kernel > as well as distributions involving the linux kernel. It's a generic > term in that context. I don't see anything on that site indicating that LMI acknowledges that the term "Linux" is generic in this context. I believe this is the case, and I believe the longstanding track record of unenforcement is sufficient protection for Debian's use of the name, but that doesn't ensure LMI won't be litigious about it or otherwise try to extract license fees related to the kernel name. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature