Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
Trademark violation time.
The article's here:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-12-14-020-04-NW-CY
Quick quote:
>When asked by a reporter why Sun's new clustering
>software was restricted to Solaris and not available
>on Linux, McNealy's aggravation seemed to peak. "You
>people just don't get it, do you? All Linux
>applications run on Solaris, which is our
>implementation of Linux. Now ask the question again,"
Assuming the quote is accurate (which, being ZD, is
iffy), this strikes me as a mondo trademark violation,
and exactly the sort of thing the Linux trademark was
designed to prevent. Solaris is NOT Linux.
That's just my opinion, of course, but I wanted to
make sure everybody was aware of the situation...
Rob
(Yes, it finally happened. The Unix idiots have now
"protected" the trademark "Unix" to the point where
Linux is now a more valuable name to be associated
with. But turnabout IS fair play. And they know the
rules if they want to participate. Add in the MS
profit warning and IBM's billion dollar pledge to our
little PBS station and it's been a good week...)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
> calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
> Trademark violation time.
It's probably a marketing guy that has no idea about what he is talking
about. I've seen good Linux related stuff come from Sun and I hardly can
imagine that such a person would make this statement.
Igmar
[Warning: Highly controversial topic ahead. Messenger does not want to be shot]
This does bring up an interesting situation.
The Linux community keeps saying that "Linux is a re-implementation of Unix."
This gets X/Open all pissed off at us, because Linux has not passed the
qualification test suites which they use for branding. So we get around that
by saying "Unix is a lot like Linux, except it costs a lot of money, comes
in binary form, etc. etc."
Yet there is no real definition for "Linux".
Some people (the FSF for instance) say that Linux is just the kernel, but
there are different kernels, with different patches.
There was even a Microkernel version of Linux called "MKLinux".
Others say that Linux is the whole distribution, but there are lots of
distributions, all different (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) There are different
placements of files in the file tree.
I know from conversations with Linus that he anticipates having (perhaps)
radically different kernels on top of "BIG IRON" machines, where the kernels
(and the distributions) come from the "BIG IRON" makers.
The licensing of the Linux trademark has basically allowed someone to use
the term "Linux" in their own trademark, but has done nothing to prevent
someone from comparing their accumulation of code with "Linux", and nothing
to define what Linux actually is.
If it is true that "all Linux applications work on top of Solaris", what
standard prevents them from calling Solaris just another implementation of
Linux? And should it?
>From an ISV perspective, the more distributions of software that run their
products binary compatible, the better off we are against Microsoft. If
Linux does not handle the very high-end machines (yet), then why not let those
applications run on Solaris? If people want to pay for Solaris, take the
binary-only distribution from Sun and run it on that large iron, why not?
On the other hand, I think we need some type of definition to what is called
"Linux". Perhaps this is where the Linux Standard Base might be appropriate.
Regards,
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall
Executive Director, Linux(R) Intern'l Director of Linux Evangelism
Linux International VA Linux Systems
80 Amherst St. 1382 Bordeaux Ave.
Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Internet: [email protected] [email protected]
WWW: http://www.li.org WWW: http://www.valinux.com
Voice: +1.603.672.4557
Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association
(R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Rob Landley wrote:
> Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
> calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
> Trademark violation time.
>
> The article's here:
>
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-12-14-020-04-NW-CY
>
> Quick quote:
>
> >When asked by a reporter why Sun's new clustering
> >software was restricted to Solaris and not available
> >on Linux, McNealy's aggravation seemed to peak. "You
> >people just don't get it, do you? All Linux
> >applications run on Solaris, which is our
> >implementation of Linux. Now ask the question again,"
I wouldn't worry about this. It's only a question of time
before people will start to ask him why Sun isn't shipping
the "original Linux" but has their own, strange, version ;)
cheers,
Rik
--
Hollywood goes for world dumbination,
Trailer at 11.
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:54:21PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
> > calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
> > Trademark violation time.
>
> It's probably a marketing guy that has no idea about what he is talking
> about. I've seen good Linux related stuff come from Sun and I hardly can
> imagine that such a person would make this statement.
Ehrm. If I'm not all wrong, Scott McNealy is the CEO of Sun...
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <[email protected]> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rob Landley <[email protected]> writes:
> Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
> calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
> Trademark violation time.
<snip>
Yeah... isn't he a moron :)
> Assuming the quote is accurate (which, being ZD, is
> iffy), this strikes me as a mondo trademark violation,
> and exactly the sort of thing the Linux trademark was
> designed to prevent. Solaris is NOT Linux.
<snip>
I am not sure it is a big deal. If you read the comment it was more of an
off-the-cuff remark.
I doubt anyone would testify in court that McNealy said this. The only way it
is something to worry about is if they used it in a printed format (IANAL)
Kevin
- --
Kevin A. Burton ( [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] )
Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
Fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt
iD8DBQE6OaHLAwM6xb2dfE0RAhjrAJ455OifteP/TUPNYPHSXS5rHlIpRQCfftmR
1vhBmtZke0649VZCouwOgJk=
=uO3l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
radar domestic disruption SEAL Team 6 Cocaine Ortega arrangements Panama
Ft. Bragg Waco, Texas PLO ammunition genetic supercomputer FBI Uzi
> > >When asked by a reporter why Sun's new clustering
> > >software was restricted to Solaris and not available
> > >on Linux, McNealy's aggravation seemed to peak. "You
> > >people just don't get it, do you? All Linux
> > >applications run on Solaris, which is our
> > >implementation of Linux. Now ask the question again,"
>
> I wouldn't worry about this. It's only a question of time
> before people will start to ask him why Sun isn't shipping
> the "original Linux" but has their own, strange, version ;)
hahahaha... I like that view.. Nice one for my infoline :)
Regards,
Igmar
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:54:21PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> >
> > > Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
> > > calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
> > > Trademark violation time.
> >
> > It's probably a marketing guy that has no idea about what he is talking
> > about. I've seen good Linux related stuff come from Sun and I hardly can
> > imagine that such a person would make this statement.
>
> Ehrm. If I'm not all wrong, Scott McNealy is the CEO of Sun...
Yes, someone also noted that to me. His words sound like those of some
marketing guy, or some politican (for the Dutch guys : Kok :-))
Igmar
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 08:15:41PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:54:21PM +0100, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > Heads up everybody. Scott McNealy has apparently been
> > > > calling Solaris Sun's implementation of Linux.
> > > > Trademark violation time.
> > >
> > > It's probably a marketing guy that has no idea about what he is talking
> > > about. I've seen good Linux related stuff come from Sun and I hardly can
> > > imagine that such a person would make this statement.
> >
> > Ehrm. If I'm not all wrong, Scott McNealy is the CEO of Sun...
>
> Yes, someone also noted that to me. His words sound like those of some
> marketing guy, or some politican (for the Dutch guys : Kok :-))
Yup, that's Scooter (all the Sun old timers call him Scooter, I dunno where
it came from, I wasn't enough of an old timer). And, yeah, he does a lot
of marketing. But in many respects, he's the perfect CEO. He's always
out in public, pushing the message, and he tends to leave the day to day
stuff to the other folks. I'll take him over Gates any day of the week.
Scott's only big sin was to dump SunOS for Slowaris.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
--- "Jon 'maddog' Hall, Executive Director, Linux
International" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Warning: Highly controversial topic ahead.
> Messenger does not want to be shot]
Aw come on, it's traditional. :)
> This does bring up an interesting situation.
>
> The Linux community keeps saying that "Linux is a
> re-implementation of Unix."
>
> This gets X/Open all pissed off at us, because Linux
Understood. Linux is NOT Unix. (Just as Gnu's Not
Unix, either. :) We do go to certain lengths so as
not to violate their trademark, and when we slip up we
acknowledge it, back off, and clarify.
This is what SUN needs to do. I think LI or somebody
needs to send them a letter informing them that Linux
is, in point of fact, a trademark, and that they can't
throw it around like a generic term or it will go the
way of "asprin".
The rules for using that trademark were at least
partly defined almost a year ago. The following post
was picked up and duplicated at dozens of locations
(check google):
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week04/0654.html
If Sun's going to start calling Solaris Linux, then I
think we need to have somebody official send them a
letter asking them not to, or at the VERY least
acknowledging the trademark.
> Yet there is no real definition for "Linux".
A definite point. However, one obvious definition is
something that uses the Linux kernel. You can have a
Linux-workalike that is not, in point of fact, Linux.
(Just as you can have a generic version of
acetominaphen that is not, in point of fact, Tylenol.
This sort of distinction is what a trademark is FOR.)
> Some people (the FSF for instance) say that Linux is
> just the kernel, but
> there are different kernels, with different patches.
And there are many variants of "cheerios" (honey nut,
frosted, etc). And there are many cheerio-like
toasted oatmeal loop thingy cereals on the market.
But they have to have their own name, they can't
infringe on somebody else's trademark.
> There was even a Microkernel version of Linux called
> "MKLinux".
Good point. But it was fundamentally a port of the
Linux kernel to a new environment. It started from
the Linux kernel (didn't start as a seperate project),
and it ended up containing huge quantities of the
Linux kernel. Moreover, they had Linus's fairly
explicit permission to use the name anyway, which
glosses over a lot of sins. :) (Not to mention this
was back before we particularly cared about trademark
issues, but that's not a good legal argument, is it?)
> Others say that Linux is the whole distribution, but
> there are lots of
> distributions, all different (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.)
> There are different
> placements of files in the file tree.
True. But there we go back to Linus's january post,
which DID cover using the name "Linux" for larger
projects (like Red Hat Inc.) Intent matters. Sun's
intent is clearly to take an existing system and jump
on the Linux bandwagon, and confuse people as to what
is Linux and what isn't.
There's a lot of Linux-like systems out there, and yes
most of them predate Linux in some way. Forget the
proprietary stuff for a moment, look at BSD. BSD
isn't Linux. Linux isn't BSD either. They're
functionally equivalent in most respects, but neither
project is attempting to take credit for the work of
the other.
Sun is free to put out a version of Linux. But to
call Solaris Linux is, in my opinion, going over the
edge here and diluting the trademark.
> I know from conversations with Linus that he
> anticipates having (perhaps)
> radically different kernels on top of "BIG IRON"
> machines, where the kernels
> (and the distributions) come from the "BIG IRON"
> makers.
Sure. But they diverge from the same code base.
Look at it this way: can the linux-kernel mailing list
community take any credit/blame for what goes on in
those "Big Iron" kernels? Yes, we can. We're not
ENTIRELY responsible for them (any more than we're
responsible for the patched kernels Red Hat puts out),
but they are in large part based on/derived from the
work done here. Especially the work of Linus
torvalds, Top Banana of this community and personal
owner of the Linux trademark.
Can we or Linus take credit or blame for Solaris? No.
It's not us. We didn't do any of it, we didn't
contribute to it or prevent anything from being added
to it, we didn't even advise it's development. It was
and is a totally seperate project that has been
attempting to converge with a more succesful project,
live in its shadow, and take credit from it.
This is 100% what trademarks are FOR.
> The licensing of the Linux trademark has basically
> allowed someone to use
> the term "Linux" in their own trademark, but has
> done nothing to prevent
> someone from comparing their accumulation of code
> with "Linux", and nothing
> to define what Linux actually is.
Comparing with Linux, no. Saying Solaris is an
implementation of Linux, yes.
The fact we haven't done this YET is why we need to
NOW. If you don't police a trademark, you lose it.
We haven't had this kind of infringement before, but
we do now. We need a definition of bounaries.
Solaris is NOT Linux, any more than Linux is Unix, or
an edition of a student newspaper is a copy of The New
York Times. Solaris did not recieve contributions
from trademark holder Linus Torvalds (that I'm aware
of) or the Linux community via this mailing list.
> If it is true that "all Linux applications work on
> top of Solaris", what standard prevents them from
> calling Solaris just another implementation of
> Linux? And should it?
First off, we don't actually know that they do (what
testing has been done, how about hardware support and
drivers), but that whole topic is a red herring.
Workalike isn't the same. Tylenol vs generic drugs
with the same chemical. A trademark says we did it
and we feel we can take credit for it, and even if
somebody else has something functionally similar our
name stands behind and distinguishes what WE did. We
take the blame if it goes wrong, we get the bug
reports, we stand behind it.
If we said Linux was actually Solaris, Sun would be
all over us with Lawyers. They'd have to protect
their trademark. If Red Hat called its next release
of Linux (Gnu/linux,
gnu/xfree86/helixcode/redhat/WithExtraEthernetDriversFromDonaldBecker'sWebsite/linux)
"Red Hat Solaris", they'd get sued.
> From an ISV perspective, the more distributions of
> software that run their products binary compatible,
> the better off we are against Microsoft. If
Binary compatable is great. Remember, Linux uses
Posix (although we don't SAY posix much because that's
another trademark and nobody jumps through the hoops
to re-test each new conbination of kernel version X
with utility set Y). When we finally ship an LSB,
Solaris can say it's LSB compliant to its heart's
content. (Assuming they pass the LSB people's tests
and hence get permission to use that trademark.)
But I really do think calling Solaris Linux is
intentionally confusing, and McNeally knows it.
> Linux does not handle the very high-end machines
> (yet), then why not let those
> applications run on Solaris?
I'm all for it. But as you just said, Linux doesn't
run there. Solaris does. Linux is not Solaris.
> If people want to pay for Solaris, take the
> binary-only distribution from Sun and run it on that
> large iron, why not?
It's not a technical thing, it's the head of a
for-profit corporation intentionally attacking and
diluting the Linux trademark in order to promote his
own (seperate) product/project.
Either we abandon the trademark, or we ask him to
stop.
> On the other hand, I think we need some type of
> definition to what is called "Linux".
Is it powered by something derived from the Linux
kernel? That's the de facto standard definition.
> Perhaps this is where the Linux Standard
> Base might be appropriate.
For a GNU/Linux system, sure. But GNU/Hurd isn't
Linux, is it? (The FSF seems to be clear about this,
pedantically so at times. Why can't we simply send a
"please stop doing this" letter to a guy who really
should know better?)
Also, remember that 90% of the law is perception.
(How many shrinkwrap licenses have actually been
enforced in court so far?) Sun's lawyers will
probably reign McNealy in if we just bring up the
issue. We're not talking about a lawsuit here, we're
talking about politely asking somebody else to respect
a trademark.
If we DON'T do it, the trademark becomes less of a
defense against NT's nominative posix compliance
turning into "Microsoft Linux" with the NT kernel.
> Regards,
>
> md
Rob
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
--- Rik van Riel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Rob Landley wrote:
> > >people just don't get it, do you? All Linux
> > >applications run on Solaris, which is our
> > >implementation of Linux. Now ask the question
> again,"
>
> I wouldn't worry about this. It's only a question
> of time
> before people will start to ask him why Sun isn't
> shipping
> the "original Linux" but has their own, strange,
> version ;)
Sure. But why HAVE a trademark if we don't enforce
it?
Grassroots support is always a wondeful thing, and
educating the public is extremely important. Then
again, what McNealy's trying to confuse his customers.
Enforcing the trademark would therefore serve an
educational purpose, wouldn't it? :)
> cheers,
>
> Rik
Rob
> Hollywood goes for world dumbination,
> Trailer at 11.
Projector finally fixed, film at 11.
Coughing fit strikes city, phlegm at 11.
Mad dog on mains treat, foam at 11...
This counts as a genre, doesn't it?
Rob
... I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
--- Larry McVoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yup, that's Scooter (all the Sun old timers call him
> Scooter, I dunno where
> it came from, I wasn't enough of an old timer).
> And, yeah, he does a lot
> of marketing. But in many respects, he's the
> perfect CEO. He's always
> out in public, pushing the message, and he tends to
> leave the day to day
> stuff to the other folks. I'll take him over Gates
> any day of the week.
I'm not against them, and I wouldn't make too big a
deal out of it. I'm just recommending that somebody
official ask them politely to stop doing it.
Here's how I see it:
Sun feels that their core product, Solaris, is
threatened by Linux. They have several options:
A) Jump on board and use Linux on their hardware.
B) Improve Solaris until it can compete on its own
merits.
C) Market Solaris better, to make people want Solaris
instead of Linux.
D) Confuse people into thinking that Linux and Solaris
are the same thing.
He's gone for D, and he's run straight into the Linux
trademark doing so. If everybody wants to abolish the
Linux trademark, that's fine. But if we don't defend
it here, I really do think it becomes too weak to be
useful in other situations.
McNealy wants to leverage the growth of Linux to help
his company, which is fine, but he's going about it
the wrong way. What if IBM had done this sort of
thing with AIX or Monterey instead of miraculously
acquiring a clue? IBM hasn't, they've respected the
Linux trademark very conscientiously.
> Scott's only big sin was to dump SunOS for Slowaris.
I still dunno WHY that happened (other than gaining
threading), but I suspect that should go to email...
Rob
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Rob Landley wrote :
> Sun feels that their core product, Solaris, is
> threatened by Linux. They have several options:
> A) Jump on board and use Linux on their hardware.
> B) Improve Solaris until it can compete on its own
> merits.
> C) Market Solaris better, to make people want Solaris
> instead of Linux.
> D) Confuse people into thinking that Linux and Solaris
> are the same thing.
>
> He's gone for D, and he's run straight into the Linux
> trademark doing so. If everybody wants to abolish the
> Linux trademark, that's fine. But if we don't defend
> it here, I really do think it becomes too weak to be
> useful in other situations.
I don't think he did that at all :
(Devil's Advocate time :)
What he did was say that, while everyone was looking
at Linux as the solution to modern computing problems,
he didn't need to : he already has Solaris. So Solaris
is his "Linux".
A matter of grammar, not legal or technical terms : he
didn't say that Solaris IS linux; he used a metaphor :
"[Solaris] is our implementation of Linux".
I'm not saying he's RIGHT : I'm just saying that he
didn't intend to abuse the Linux trademark. He's
taken a mix of (B) and (C) from above, claiming that
his Solaris product can accomplish the same product
targets that Linux does.
Why should Sun provide anything for Linux if they
already have Solaris providing all of the functionality?
Could I say that Wine is my Windows implementation? Windows
is a trademark, but everyone knows what I mean, right?
Microsoft's not going to be writing me any letters, right?
(well, none that I'm going to pay attention to, right? :)
All just rhetoric, of course.
Advocacy doesn't belong on linux-kernel :)
--
Dana Lacoste
Linux Developer
Peregrine Systems
--- Dana Lacoste <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think he did that at all :
> (Devil's Advocate time :)
Always a fun occupation. :)
> What he did was say that, while everyone was looking
> at Linux as the solution to modern computing
> problems,
> he didn't need to : he already has Solaris. So
> Solaris
> is his "Linux".
The question he was responding to was why Sun hadn't
put out a Linux version of some solaris-only piece of
software. His answer was that Solaris was Sun's
implementation of Linux.
> A matter of grammar, not legal or technical terms :
> he
> didn't say that Solaris IS linux; he used a metaphor
> :
> "[Solaris] is our implementation of Linux".
(I'm going to resort to a sports analogy. Brace
yourself. No, I don't know which sport. Volleyball,
possibly.)
Yeah, it's a borderline foul. But I still think it
deserves a warning from the referee.
(It's over, you can relax now.)
Point: I really do think somebody official should send
the guy a letter asking him to be careful around the
trademark.
> I'm not saying he's RIGHT : I'm just saying that he
> didn't intend to abuse the Linux trademark. He's
Somebody asked him a question about why there was no
Linux version of a piece of software, and he attacked
the validity of the question by saying Solaris is
Sun's implementation of Linux. My reading of it is
that he didn't answer the question, instead he implied
very strongly that the question was invalid, and did
so by implying very strongly that Solaris -IS- Linux
hence no need for a seperate Linux version.
Either he's fundamentally confused, or he's
intentionally trying to be confusing. The first calls
for clarification, the second calls for defending the
infringed trademark. I'm not sure which of the two
would be "giving him the benefit of the doubt",
neither's particularly flattering.
> taken a mix of (B) and (C) from above, claiming that
> his Solaris product can accomplish the same product
> targets that Linux does.
But that's not actually what he said, is it?
> Why should Sun provide anything for Linux if they
> already have Solaris providing all of the
> functionality?
He could have said that, true. Would have been well
within his rights to say it, and a valid commercial
strategy (although not necessarily a winning one).
But that's not what he said.
> Could I say that Wine is my Windows implementation?
You could say the sky is green. The more interesting
question is, are you the one putting out Wine?
Winehq.com doesn't claim Wine is a windows
implementation, does it? It calls it an
implementation of the Windows APIs.
> Windows is a trademark, but everyone knows what I
> mean, right?
> Microsoft's not going to be writing me any letters,
> right?
Actually, I wouldn't be too suprised if they did.
They have lawyers on salary just waiting for something
to do. The question is, are you
big/important/noticeable enough to go after?
By the way, have you read the actual "about Wine" page
from Wine's site?
http://www.winehq.com/about.shtml
Trademark acknowledgement is at the bottom (albiet in
a rather vague way), and the "about Wine" section is
quite clear on what Wine is and what it isn't.
> (well, none that I'm going to pay attention to,
> right? :)
But you're not a corporation, are you?
> All just rhetoric, of course.
> Advocacy doesn't belong on linux-kernel :)
I'm not advocacying, I raised a question about the
Linux trademark in the venue I thought most
appropriate (don't know of a better one), and I'm
following up on the replies. I've trimmed the "cc:"
list on several occasions.
It doesn't noticeably seem to be skewing the overall
signal to noise ratio of l-k so far. :)
> --
> Dana Lacoste
> Linux Developer
> Peregrine Systems
>
Rob
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> I am not sure it is a big deal. If you read the
> comment it was more of an off-the-cuff remark.
>
> I doubt anyone would testify in court that McNealy
> said this. The only way it is something to worry
> about is if they used it in a printed format (IANAL)
Law isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Obviously this
isn't worth a lawsuit. By itself it's not even close.
But sending an official letter asking them to respect
the trademark counts as "defending the trademark" if
it's abused in the future and we DO want to get
serious about it. (Neutralizes this as a precedent
slimy lawyers can point to of "Linux" being
undefendable as a trademark and instead being a
generic term.)
And if the pattern of behavior WERE to continue/get
worse, having gone through the appropriate steps way
back when (measured, proprotionate response to earlier
incidents) makes a much firmer foundation for a
lawsuit later.
And, because Sun's lawyers know that last point,
they're fairly likely to take it seriously enough to
let McNealy know that his course of action carries
certain risks. (Remember that Meme Hacking talk, at
the Fortune 500 it's all about reducing and managing
risk.)
It's a bit like saying your cat's name when you see
them up on the coffee table where they're not supposed
to be. It's not the same as actually punishing them,
just letting them know you're aware that they're doing
it.
> Kevin
Rob
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Rob Landley <[email protected]> writes:
> Remember, Linux uses
> Posix (although we don't SAY posix much because that's
> another trademark and nobody jumps through the hoops
> to re-test each new conbination of kernel version X
> with utility set Y).
POSIX is not a trademark. The name refers to an IEEE/ISO/IEC
standard.
You don't *have* to run any tests to claim that Linux (+ libc +
utilities) conforms to POSIX. But if you don't run a suitable test
suite, how can you be confident that it does conform to POSIX?
(The origin of the term POSIX may be a surprise to some. See
<URL:http://www.linuxcare.com/viewpoints/os-interviews/12-14-99.epl>).
David Wragg