Is new logo a trade mark?

Ferhiord · 2008-01-17 13:49:22

Is it right that new logo is trade mark? In my humble opinion, it doesn't harmonize with open source ideology. If you are agreeable with me, can you remove (tm) from all pictures?

Last edited by Ferhiord (2008-01-17 13:52:35)

Cerebral · 2008-01-17 14:07:21

It's a mark indicating our trade (ArchLinux) - to the best of my knowledge that makes it an unregistered TradeMark.

I don't see how that "doesn't harmonize with open source ideology" though. We do release the sources. http://www.archlinux.org/art

ahronzombi · 2008-01-17 14:17:31

Ferhiord wrote:

Is it right that new logo is trade mark? In my humble opinion, it doesn't harmonize with open source ideology. If you are agreeable with me, can you remove (tm) from all pictures?

this logo is open. but then yourt half life avatar isnt in harmony with open source at all

Allan · 2008-01-17 14:26:03

I has to be trade marked so that when our evil twin site (www.evilarchlinux.com) starts using it then we can say "oi... you... no!"

And no, there really isn't such a site (I just checked)

ralvez · 2008-01-17 14:36:28

As far as I know logos do not fall within the "spirit" of the open source tradition, and as a matter of fact, it makes sense. A logo is an identifier of a product and if anyone is allowed to "mock" with it, that identifier looses its purpose.
That was, if my memory serves me well, the root of the problem when Debian tried to build their release of Firefox with another logo and the FF team stop them; remember?

To me there is a big difference between OS and trade logos... and given the purpose a logo is supposed to serve I see no conflicts there and the TM is just fine.

R.

Ferhiord · 2008-01-17 14:42:40

ahronzombi wrote:

Ferhiord wrote:
Is it right that new logo is trade mark? In my humble opinion, it doesn't harmonize with open source ideology. If you are agreeable with me, can you remove (tm) from all pictures?
this logo is open. but then yourt half life avatar isnt in harmony with open source at all

mmm - i don't use this avatar because it is from HL, i use "lambda" because it symbol of fighters for freedom organization (yes, in HL).

But if (tm) is near logo it means (i always think) sale (this is disharmony with open source ideology) and protection from competitors. And if it means trade (=craft), why do you remind of it? Look at the Debian site, you don't find any reminding of "capitalistic" rights.

I'm very sorry if I don't right.

FeatherMonkey · 2008-01-17 14:52:48

Sale is not against OS harmony, that's not true..

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html you seem to have a misunderstanding of free as in freedom not free of cost. Though that is likely to be side affect of releasing source to the community.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/g … ownloadFee

Cerebral · 2008-01-17 14:54:57

Ferhiord wrote:

Look at the Debian site, you don't find any reminding of "capitalistic" rights.

If you wanna pull other distros out of the air, how about you check out Gentoo - or specifically, the their front-page logo - they've got a TM.

Having said that, Arch has never been a distro that says "Hey, someone else is doing it, let's do it too!" nor have we been a straight-by-the-books OSS advocating distro (we have acroread, catalyst, nvidia, etc... in our repos). The 'TM' is fine.

Ferhiord · 2008-01-17 15:15:29

Thanks for enlightenment, I have recognized that I was wrong.

ahronzombi · 2008-01-17 15:22:20

im questioning the whole choice to use arch all together now because of this thread. i bet we have lost at least 20 users and a developer or two by now

arooaroo · 2008-01-17 15:38:39

Not that bothered about trademarks. I'm just curious as to whether the name ArchLinux and this logo are in fact officially trademarked. Otherwise, it's just a blatant fib.

Don't forget, the "Linux" name is a trademark owned by Linus.

z0phi3l · 2008-01-17 15:40:51

ahronzombi wrote:

im questioning the whole choice to use arch all together now because of this thread. i bet we have lost at least 20 users and a developer or two by now

How so? Because of a TINY TM mark I hadn't realized was there till this thread brought it up?

Cerebral · 2008-01-17 15:43:40

arooaroo wrote:

Not that bothered about trademarks. I'm just curious as to whether the name ArchLinux and this logo are in fact officially trademarked. Otherwise, it's just a blatant fib.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark wrote:

The ™ symbol may be used when trademark rights are claimed in relation
to a mark, but the mark has not been registered with the government
trademarks office of a particular country or jurisdiction, while the
(R) is used to indicate that the mark has been so registered. It is
not mandatory to use either symbol, although the force of convention
is such that the symbols are widely used around the world.

thayer · 2008-01-17 19:04:22

It's a simple concept really... Arch Linux is a group that makes free & open software. The software will always be free and open...ALWAYS, much like Gentoo, openSUSE, Fedora, etc... The name itself and likeness of image is protected simply to prevent counterfeits or hijackings. The logo FILES are released under Creative Commons, allowing you to modify/redistribute them as long as you attribute Arch Linux as the original source and license the work under a similarly open license--it doesn't really get more open than that without completely giving up identity rights.

If you look around in the IT world, almost all open source software is made by a company or foundation whose name/identity is trademarked or registered. Even the Linux name is trademarked.

Last edited by thayer (2008-01-17 19:06:40)

tesjo · 2008-01-17 19:36:10

If you are put off by trademarks maybe you should find a new OS as Linux is a registered trademark (see the bottom of kernel.org)

But don't be put off, even Richard Stallman, the biggest advocate of FOSS, says trademarks don't matter.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000 … 183,00.htm

PJ · 2008-01-17 20:23:26

Ferhiord wrote:

Look at the Debian site, you don't find any reminding of "capitalistic" rights.

If you mean "capitalistic" == trademark...

Then I guess you didn't look hard enough:

The image below is there in case you still have some problems finding it.

http://www.us.debian.org/trademark

phrakture · 2008-01-17 21:51:33

Ferhiord wrote:

Is it right that new logo is trade mark? In my humble opinion, it doesn't harmonize with open source ideology. If you are agreeable with me, can you remove (tm) from all pictures?

For clarity, a Trademark IS NOT RELATED TO Copyright.

Everyone confuses this.

toofishes · 2008-01-18 01:12:00

phrakture wrote:

Ferhiord wrote:
Is it right that new logo is trade mark? In my humble opinion, it doesn't harmonize with open source ideology. If you are agreeable with me, can you remove (tm) from all pictures?
For clarity, a Trademark IS NOT RELATED TO Copyright.
Everyone confuses this.

Hell, open source isn't even related to copyright in many respects. If you want non-copyrighted works, you better get off your computer right now. pacman is copyrighted code. So is cp, mv, and all those other utilities.

arooaroo · 2008-01-18 02:10:43

Cerebral wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark wrote:
The ™ symbol may be used when trademark rights are claimed in relation
to a mark, but the mark has not been registered with the government
trademarks office of a particular country or jurisdiction, while the
(R) is used to indicate that the mark has been so registered. It is
not mandatory to use either symbol, although the force of convention
is such that the symbols are widely used around the world.

Good point. I didn't realise you could use TM without being registered. Still, I guess there is still an argument to be made about AL's use of a registered trademark "Linux" within its own trademark. Unless of course the devs have already sought a license.

zodmaner · 2008-01-18 03:35:04

ahronzombi wrote:

im questioning the whole choice to use arch all together now because of this thread. i bet we have lost at least 20 users and a developer or two by now

You are being sarcastic, right? Because every Linux (and also *bsd) distributions I know are all have had their logo/artwork trade marked. So stop using Arch because of this reason is just silly.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-01-18 03:42:45)

phrakture · 2008-01-18 06:59:31

arooaroo wrote:

Cerebral wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark wrote:
The ™ symbol may be used when trademark rights are claimed in relation
to a mark, but the mark has not been registered with the government
trademarks office of a particular country or jurisdiction, while the
(R) is used to indicate that the mark has been so registered. It is
not mandatory to use either symbol, although the force of convention
is such that the symbols are widely used around the world.
Good point. I didn't realise you could use TM without being registered. Still, I guess there is still an argument to be made about AL's use of a registered trademark "Linux" within its own trademark. Unless of course the devs have already sought a license.

You don't need a license to use a trademark in context of the thing which is trademarked. Again, this is NOT copyright.

schivmeister · 2008-01-18 07:13:07

HUH?!

Is this serious..? o.O

Trademark, Copyright, these have nothing to do with open source/free software philosophy. In fact, the GNU General Public License is based upon Copyright. Without copyright, free software as we know them today may not even have existed.

The arts (fine arts, computer graphics, music, literature) is very different from software, so do not relate them to software in a way you'd relate one software to another. I have all the right to license my music in a way it would enable me to eat. There is no "source code" in art. When you buy a CD, a book, a portrait, you get it all to yourself, no licensing obligations, no partial-ownership obligation, you OWN them. In China, they own YOU.

Thinking that anything Copyright and anything Trademark is against "software freedom" is narrow. In this case, you expect everything to be free to YOU, more like a thief's mentality rather than a concerned citizen of this world. Well, it just means you don't understand Copyright and Trademarks, so read up (i'm sure Wikipedia has huge articles on stuff like this) Anyway, threadstarter has already apologized so let's grab some beer and do some nuclear physics math involving lots of lambdas.

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-01-18 07:15:10)

peets · 2008-01-18 13:52:48

I think that art and software are the same -- they are ideas, and their distribution cannot be restrained like the distribution of physical goods (hardware) is, especially thanks to the internet. Copyright law has to be reviewed. Right now I'm paying close attention to the Creative Commons license, it looks interesting.

I really agree with what Thayer said in this thread. If you haven't read his post, I encourage you do do so now

schivmeister · 2008-01-18 17:52:32

Yeah ideas, but two different sides. IMO, the arts, less digital content, consist of physical trains of thought and material; books, albums, canvas, tapes, thus cannot fall in the software/hardware paradigm. Same reason why software licences unlike the CC cannot apply to the arts. There is nothing hidden in the arts, unless we're talking about hidden meanings The only concern is over sharing, and that's where the CC comes in, yes. Stallman likes to go over and over about this but it gets boring.

Now the only problem is DRM! Well, I can live an analogue life

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-01-18 17:54:24)

arooaroo · 2008-01-18 18:43:55

phrakture wrote:

You don't need a license to use a trademark in context of the thing which is trademarked. Again, this is NOT copyright.

IANAL. But...

The Linux Mark Institute (http://www.linuxmark.org/) is the organisation that manages the Linux trademark (on behalf of Linus). To be honest I though this was only an issue if you try and register a trademark with the word "Linux" in, however, in the Linux Mark FAQ,

http://www.linuxmark.org/who_needs.php:

Examples of Use Requiring A Sublicense.
If you plan to market a Linux-based product or service to the public using a trademark that includes the element "Linux," such as "Super Dooper Linux" or "Real Time Linux Consultants" you are required to apply for and obtain a sublicense from LMI. This is true whether or not you apply to register your trademark with a government.

Also, http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php:

If the answer to all three of the following questions is "yes," then you need to apply for a sublicense. If the answer to any of these questions is "no," then you do not need to apply for a sublicense.
1. Is my mark a trademark (see how we define "trademark," below)?
2. Does my mark contain the following string of adjacent letters, in this order: "Linux"? These letters may or may not be capitalized, and in the case of foreign characters, phonetic translations also apply.
3. Do I use my mark to identify software-related goods or services (see how that phrase is defined, below)?

I can't help noticing the word "Linux" in the ArchLinux trademark, hence it seems that there may be a requirement to get in touch with the LMI.

One may infer that given that the LMI hasn't been chasing various Linux-named distros, that suggests that the LMI doesn't consider it a problem. Maybe that's right. But maybe it's because they're a small outfit and chasing hobby distros isn't high on their priorities. If it were me, based on what I've now read at the LMI site, I'd get in touch with them (because I'd want to be a good Linux citizen and not want to knowingly contravene the law) - hopefully they will say "don't worry about it ArchLinux is fine", etc, etc. I dunno, I believe there's a can of worms here that very few people are thinking about.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-01-17 13:49:22

Is new logo a trade mark?

#2 2008-01-17 14:07:21

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#3 2008-01-17 14:17:31

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#4 2008-01-17 14:26:03

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#5 2008-01-17 14:36:28

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#6 2008-01-17 14:42:40

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#7 2008-01-17 14:52:48

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#8 2008-01-17 14:54:57

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#9 2008-01-17 15:15:29

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#10 2008-01-17 15:22:20

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#11 2008-01-17 15:38:39

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#12 2008-01-17 15:40:51

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#13 2008-01-17 15:43:40

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#14 2008-01-17 19:04:22

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#15 2008-01-17 19:36:10

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#16 2008-01-17 20:23:26

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#17 2008-01-17 21:51:33

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#18 2008-01-18 01:12:00

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#19 2008-01-18 02:10:43

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#20 2008-01-18 03:35:04

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#21 2008-01-18 06:59:31

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#22 2008-01-18 07:13:07

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#23 2008-01-18 13:52:48

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#24 2008-01-18 17:52:32

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

#25 2008-01-18 18:43:55

Re: Is new logo a trade mark?

Board footer