[plug] LMI fees and the Linux trademark (was: The clarion voice of sanity in a slashmob of chaos.)

[Craig Ringer]

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 06:07 +0000, simon wrote:

> Not agreeing with Onno = inflammatory? What the! I think calling someone a
> troll, asking for the discussion to be moved OT, and calling someone's
> postings drivel is probably a better description of inflammatory.

What seems to be the issue is that you haven't done a very good job of
indicating that you've even read the material you've been referred to
for information, or commented specifically on it. When reading your
posts it sounds a lot like you're just ignoring this information.

If you have specific questions after reading the FAQ or other
information, or if you have issues not covered by the existing material
provided, then you should probably mention those specifically and with
reference to the material you think fails to sufficiently answer the
question.

Even better, if it's about the FAQ you might want to get in touch with
the author of the FAQ in question (though he's probably drowning in mail
after the Slashdot incident) and suggest that he clarify those points.

I think you might get more helpful responses if you make it clear (a)
specifically what you're talking about, in detail and (b) what
references you've been looking at. Think:

"I was concerned about $blah, mainly their intention to $blah2. Some
research turned up $url and $url, but neither really specifically
answered $question. They did say $quote1 and $quote2, but that doesn't
really cover what I'm looking for. Does anybody know what exactly is
going on about $blah2?"

not

"what about $blah2?!!?!"

Re-reading your posts, your issue appears to be specifically about the
LMI fees, not about the assignment of the trademark. Is this correct?

If so, I think this may be helpful:

http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2005-August/msg00084.html

as may this:

http://lwn.net/Articles/140670/

If you have any further questions, I suggest that you ask them with
reference to the material already provided.

> All I have done is put forward an opposing viewpoint, and refused to easily
> accept paraphrased and probably inaccurate views of the situation.

Which is fine, but you've also given little indication that you've even
read, and no indication that you've considered, any of the explanations
supplied.

> So far, the
> argument has changed from 'to stop people from using the linux name for bad
> things' to 'to stop people from using the linux name for things that arent
> linux' to 'to stop someone else from trademarking the name'.

All of which appear to be true.

> All of these
> arguments are flawed in the extreme. Id like to explore that, but it seems
> blind acceptance of decisions from up high are in order around here.

Feel free to elaborate, but please do so politely and calmly. This is
not Slashdot.

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 05:57 +0000, simon wrote: 

> yup, and nowhere does it say that license fees are required by Australian law.

Am I correct in stating, then, that your main issue is with the
possibility of fees being charged for use of the trademark? If so, see
above.

> quote:
> >But you're asking me for money!
> >No I'm not. You might be required to licence the mark in the future if you are
> >using the Linux mark in a trade mark context for your business, but I have no
> >instructions, and don't anticipate receiving any, to pursue you to take out such a
> >licence.
> 
> Meaning: we reserve the right to charge fees, but we probably wont. This
> in fact complete negates the claim that fees are required by Australian law,

That's news to me. Was that from slashdot discussion (or the
all-too-similar discussion on PLUG) ? I haven't been following in
detail, having silly things like study and work to do. I didn't see
anything like that on any of the resources I've sought out for
authorative information.

My understanding is that the current effort is to get the trademark
properly registered in Australia. That brings it under Linus's control,
and he has assigned responsibility to the Linux Mark Institute. I find
this entirely non-controversial. I am not aware of any requirement for
charging fees when licensing a trademark - HOWEVER, as far as I know one
is compelled to enforce a trademark in order to retain control over it.
The fees appear to stem from the requirement to cover costs in the
enforcement of the trademark.

I do share some concern over the matter of trademark license fees,
personally, especially for non-profits. I'm disinclined to panic
however, and all the garbage flying around has obstructed rational
discussion to the point where the best option seems to be to wait a
while longer before politely asking someone who should actually know for
a detailed explanation.

--
Craig Ringer