[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux mark extortion



Well, Linus purpose here is to keep people from using the mark for stuff that isn't Linux at all, and to keep someone from attempting to appropriate the mark and restrict others from doing so.

It's just the implementation that sucks.

This was done by OSDL lawyers or Gervaise Davis' law firm and they just didn't bother to consider us. Maddog administers this for Linus, and it's not clear to me what he was thinking in going this far without bringing Debian in for at least a look over the terms.

I think we need to marshall our objections to bring them to Maddog as a group.

    Thanks

    Bruce

Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 01:40:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
  
What's the scenario you're concerned about here?  Someone taking Debian
and distributing it as "MyLinux" and Debian not protecting that use
somehow?
    

Debian certainly cares about the terms under which Debian can be reused;
this is one.  As far as impressions go, it certainly feels non-free that
I can't take "Debian GNU/Linux", fork and rename it to "Glenn GNU/Linux"
and sell it.  My impression would possibly be different this wasn't being
applied retroactively, after Linux was usable with no restrictions for
years; it feels in the same boat as the Pine licensing mess, where UW
retroactively "un-freed" Pine.  If "Linux" had these terms to begin with,
people would probably have used a different name; we're stuck with it
now, and suddenly we have to pay for it.  It feels like we've been bait-
and-switched.

(I'm not entirely decided on the issue, applied non-retroactively: the
Apache v1 "may not be named *Apache*" terms are considered Free, but
this feels far more wide-reaching.  In any event, I'm having a hard time
seeing anything but undisguised hypocrasy on Linus's part here; as much
distaste as I have for making such a conclusion, I can't seem to find
any other ...)

  


Reply to: