[plug] The clarion voice of sanity in a slashmob of chaos.

[Craig Ringer]

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 01:26 +0000, simon wrote:
> Senectus . (senectus at gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > PJ speaks out about the latest mob-mentality derived, inappropriate
> > and unfortunate net-crucifixion.
> >
> > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989
> >
> 
> "But what about Linux Insider? All they ever seem to report is antiLinux news.
> If I owned the Linux trademark, I'd want to make them stop, if I could. "
>
> Thats it. The FOSS crowd have collectively gone insane.

Well, some of it has. Actually, some of it has long been completely
insane, but anyway...

I'm concerned about that too. I think Groklaw often goes pretty badly
over the top. In this case I could chariably interpret that statement to
imply that Linux Insider has been /abusing the trademark/ (which is not
the same as publishing "antiLinux news"), but I'm not really convinced t
has. Linux Insider has gone way out of bounds in other areas, but I
don't think that'd be reasonable justification for suppressing it by use
of a trademark.

Groklaw, however, does not speak for the community. It speaks for
Groklaw. Please keep that in mind. Lots of people strongly agree with
the site (on some matters sometimes I'm one of them) but it's not an
official representative of the community.

> If Linux Insider choose to publish antiLinux news, the historical FOSS stance
> would be to listen to it, and learn from it. Suddenly we're trying to shut
> people up.

Heh. The post-about-1993 FOSS stance would be to drown it in misspelled
flames and chew it out on Slashdot, alas.

Some people do like to try to listen to rational criticism, however,
even when it's presented with a very strong bias or vested interest.
GrokLaw's PJ does not appear to be one of those people, but that doesn't
mean that many community members don't listen and consider the remarks
and even attacks of people who disagree with them.

> When did the community change from 'it works for me, I scratched an itch,
> YMMV' to 'we have to subvert trademark law to protect our product from people
> who might want to say bad things about it - because expanding the linux
> userbase is all important, and we dont need bad press'.

The community expaneded, some people's views have changed, and others
have come in with other viewpoints. The original approach you refer is
still there and going strong. Torvalds comes to mind. Those people,
however, don't tend to make a massive media fuss or spend hours writing
on websites, because they have real work to do.

Please don't make the mistake of treating a few websites as "the
community."

> "What if Microsoft decided that the ultimate purpose of its Linux Lab (note
> the name) is to put out a version of Windows, Windows apps running on a
> twisted, poorly functioning pseudo Linux kernel, and they decide to call it
> Windows Linux?"
> 
> Then theyd have a bad product. Many people have released, and will continue to
> release, shoddy products based on linux with or without this trademark
> protection. The only difference now is that people will have to pay. Show me
> the clause in the GPL that says your product must maintain a certain level of
> quality. If that were the case, most FOSS projects would disappear and the
> linux kernel would never have existed.

I have to disagree with you on this point. There's a difference between
a poorly engineered product, and a product that's maliciously designed
to damage the reputation of products it impersonates.

There's no certification program or anything like that associated with
the name Linux (and I for one hope there never is) but I don't think
it's inappropriate to prevent use of the name for actively destructive
purposes.

> Unless ofcourse the idea is that LMI will look at every product to be branded
> 'linux' and only award licenses to those they think are up to scratch. In that
> case, Im not just scared, Im very very scared.

I tend to agree here. However, I don't see that happening - Linus seems
smarter than that.

> Perhaps they will only deny
> licenses to those they dont like or think are uberevil (MS and SCO)???? Read
> the GPL again, and find me the clause about restricting usage only to people
> we like.

Oddly enough, there's nothing like that that there ;-) . The GPL isn't
the issue though, it's the Linux trademark. I'm not convinced there's
anything wrong with some level of enforcement on the Linux trademark
personally - and it *doesn't* restrict what you can do with the code.
You'd have to re-brand if you wanted to use it without a trademark
license, but ... big deal.

> The whole plan is so full of holes I dont know where to begin. I understand
> the intent, but the execution needs to be taken out back and shot like a
> whimpering dog.

I'm afraid I have to agree there.

> Above all, its too damn late. Linus should have thought about this 12 years
> ago.

The LMI has been around for quite a while. This is not a new
development, though it's new in its impact on Australia.

>  Everybody in the community sang out about the mp3 patents when suddenly
> license fees were demanded after many years of open-slather usage of the mp3
> codecs. Linus stated his position on the Linux name a decade ago, which
> amounted to 'do what you want with it but play nice'. Amazing how people are
> so accepting of locally-produced hypocrisy, and yet so condemning of anyone
> else who might try to pull the same trick.

It seems you have a pretty reasonable point there. That said, these are
*not* the same thing:

   - the MP3 issue was on licensing software patents that could prevent
     you from even using your own code to do something.
   - the Linux trademark issue is over the name, not the code or
     anything else.

That doesn't make it right, though. I personally take less issue on this
because I simply don't think it's going to cause problems. I don't know
enough about the MP3 issue to comment on it, really, though at the time
it seemed like it caused a bit more fuss than seemed warranted too.

--
Craig Ringer