To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Path: not-for-mail
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel
Subject: Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:03:16 -0400
Organization: TMR Associates, Inc
Message-ID: <cjs2o5$th6$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
References: <100120041740.9915.415D967600014EC2000026BB2200758942970A059D0A0306@comcast.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913
In-Reply-To: <100120041740.9915.415D967600014EC2000026BB2200758942970A059D0A0306@comcast.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2660
Lines: 40

jmerkey@comcast.net wrote:
> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .  What can anyone do about it anyway.  The FSF 
> isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the money to do it.  Most of this
> banter and name calling people do about it is a waste of time.  What punishment will 
> anyone get for it.  A few people writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah -- 
> this will really stop someone from doing it.  If you give your code away GPL, or not
> you have just done just that.   Tigrian is correct in his statements.  
> 
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people.  The GPL is flawed 
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use.  This is the only way you will ever stop these people.  So instead
> of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.  Then anyone 
> who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you 
> can actually do something about it. 
> 
> Oops.  Too late.  Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.  So 
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though 
> we download and use the code.  Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally 
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place. 

This subject line seems to have attracted a bunch of odd legal 
misinformation, which as noted has been refuted by the courts. However, 
I do note that Microsoft is using the work Linux in their ads, and not 
putting on the trademark symbol. It is probably good for someone to look 
at that, because a trademark can be lost if it is not defended (think 
Kleenex or Asprin). The ads just have a note in tiny print saying 
something 'some of these words may be trademarks of their owners.' I 
believe if the owner notifies them they have to add the MT or (R) symbol 
and state the name of the holder.

Clearly I'm not a lawyer, but since there was a TV show about "lost 
trademarks" I'm pretty damn sure it can happen.

The GPL is alive and well at the moment, I hope the trademark is as well.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/