Have We Paid Our $200?

soloport · 2005-08-23 13:55:13

On /. there's a discussion about the recent trademark license offerings from the new Linux(R) Mark Institute. Apparently, prices for licensing the Linux(R) mark range from $200 for N/P to $5k for $1M/year-of-revenue organizations.

So, how does this work for Arch Linux(R)? How do we collect and pay our $200?

Linux(R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.

arooaroo · 2005-08-23 14:59:39

Dang! This is a good point. I guess it's gone by for so long because many Linux distros are made for the love of it - and not for making money. This is probably why LI isn't chasing the likes of AL because we're blantantly not abusing the trademark.

But, it looks as if Arch does need a not-for-profit license at $200 - which isn't bad, I think. I'm sure Judd will annouce a license fund drive soon, and I'll contribute to it whenever that happens.

It also means that the archlinux.org does need to acknowledge the Linux trademark somewhere.

Oh dear - legal issues are so annoying.

Andromea · 2005-08-23 16:02:09

Read Torvalds' email at the lkml first. I don't think ArchLinux will have to pay anything (except if protection is wanted for the case that someone else wants the name ArchLinux), because of the following:

- _Intent_ matters. It matters a lot.

If your intent is to use the word "linux" as part of a real Linux
project, that doesn't mean that you automatically absolutely have to
get permission from me. That's the LAST thing I want. I want "Linux" to
be as free as possible as a term, and the real reason for having a
trademark in the first place was to _protect_ it rather than use it as
some kind of legalistic enforcement thing.

But, for example, if your intent is to register "mylinux.com" (made up
example, I don't know if it is registered or not) only in the hopes of
selling the domain name for mucho dinero later, then that kind of
intent is not something I (or anybody else, I think) would find really
acceptable, because now the use of "linux" in this case has really been
a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it
to get money.

ozar · 2005-08-23 17:52:49

Count me in... I'm ready to chip in when the time comes.

arooaroo · 2005-08-23 18:06:09

@Andromea

I've read that email and I'm not convinced that he is being as lenient as you think. He may wish to keep Linux as a term as open as possible, but those wishes seem to be contradicted by the requirements of trademark enforcement.

Basically, I think Linus and Linux International need to be a little more forthcoming about what this really means for Linux distributions. However, if the likes of Red Hat and Suse are paying a license, I can't see reason why not-for-profit distros to be exempt - they surely need the not-for-profit, $200, license.

It's pretty weird though. A trademark relates to a name or phrase. Therefore, by changing the name of Arch Linux to some that doesn't include "Linux", you are exempt from the fee?

Who knows? All I do know is that the BSD guys will be having a field-day, and GNU Hurd will no doubt get a boost.

iBertus · 2005-08-23 18:07:37

If we have to pay, I'll contribute. I think many other Arch users would too so we could probably come up with $200 no problem.

cactus · 2005-08-23 18:15:54

Well...even if it said, "Arch, A linux® distribution" that would be fine.

I still don't think it is a big deal. This has been the state of things for a while now..several years at least. They are just trying to get the same protection in australia as they have in the US.

I think this is just a marketing device of MS and other proprietary systems (SCO) to brew up some trouble...storm in a teacup.

Danny · 2005-08-23 19:17:24

Even though I'm not using Arch all that much (yet) I'd contribute if the need arises. Getting a credit card in 2 months. :twisted:

lanrat · 2005-08-23 23:02:47

All I can say is:

iBertus · 2005-08-23 23:53:59

lol

soloport · 2005-08-24 01:27:28

Trademark is all about protecting a "mark". One has to fiercely protect one's mark or risk losing it.

Imagine if Linus was seriously negligent about that point and some SCOundrel started using the Linux(R) mark in an attempt to weaken it and ultimately challenge its trade value. Think of how much we would all have to pay to either: 1) Rename every place we now use Linux(R) -- to read some other new name; or 2) License the mark from some SCOundrel.

The point is, as Linux(R) community members (not just as Arch Linux(R) members), we need to play by the rules of trade and ante up our fee to collectively protect Linux(R) as a trademark.

(I'm just waiting to see who among the AL decission-makers will come forward to acknowledge this and explain how we should proceed. Otherwise, I'm ready to contribute.)

[EDIT] Ok after a little thought, it occured to me that, should someone "weaken" the mark, it's not the same as stealing it. It would probably take an act of several gods to get the USPTO to agree that some SCOundrel could protect the Linux(R) mark, after it's been in circulation for all these years, and charge a license fee.

So, my bad for bringing it up again.

Gullible Jones · 2005-08-24 18:09:16

Somehow, I don't think we'll have to pay anything. We're not trying to sell any product, after all... and things have been this way for years! Do you see, say, Debian GNU/Linux having to pay a fee?

GuyonAsm · 2005-08-26 23:19:59

I'd contribute $10 towards the license for us. I know if we all chipped in we'd have more than enough.

Dusty · 2005-08-27 00:13:09

Why not donate the money for bandwidth/server costs instead?

Dusty

GuyonAsm · 2005-08-27 02:03:22

Dusty wrote:

Why not donate the money for bandwidth/server costs instead?
Dusty

Such a matter was never brought to my attention. Would you rather my funds (only 10 dollars american) go there? If so I'll donate there as soon as I can.

iBertus · 2005-08-27 03:07:36

GuyonAsm wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Why not donate the money for bandwidth/server costs instead?
Dusty
Such a matter was never brought to my attention. Would you rather my funds (only 10 dollars american) go there? If so I'll donate there as soon as I can.

* feels all warm and fuzzy *

Just donated some for bandwidth and hosting...

Arch Linux

#1 2005-08-23 13:55:13

Have We Paid Our $200?

#2 2005-08-23 14:59:39

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#3 2005-08-23 16:02:09

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#4 2005-08-23 17:52:49

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#5 2005-08-23 18:06:09

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#6 2005-08-23 18:07:37

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#7 2005-08-23 18:15:54

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#8 2005-08-23 19:17:24

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#9 2005-08-23 23:02:47

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#10 2005-08-23 23:53:59

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#11 2005-08-24 01:27:28

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#12 2005-08-24 18:09:16

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#13 2005-08-26 23:19:59

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#14 2005-08-27 00:13:09

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#15 2005-08-27 02:03:22

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

#16 2005-08-27 03:07:36

Re: Have We Paid Our $200?

Board footer