Re: Linux mark extortion
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 06:48:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is where I came in. (Threatened legal action against
> > userlinux -- http://www.userlinux.com/ -- if they didn't
> > pay license fees in recognition of oversight authority.)
On 6/18/05, Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I disagree with Bruce's opening of this discussion with the word
> "extortion", but frankly it seems to be a rather succinct description
> of what you just described.
There are alternative words that could have been just as succinct and
considerably more accurate.
Anyways, userlinux represents itself as an authority on what is and
is not Linux, in some official sense. As long as they're not saying
what we and our users are allowed to do, I have no problem with
that. If LMI wants that to be a licensed activity, I have no problem
with that. And, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with