Received: from SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po8.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA09918; Mon, 24 Aug 98 16:26:18 EDT Received: from alphamb2.phys.vt.edu by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA23464; Mon, 24 Aug 98 16:26:13 EDT Received: from localhost (siglercm@localhost) by alphamb2.phys.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08313 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Clemmitt Sigler To: Piotr Mitros Subject: E-mail exchange with Michael McLagan. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:46:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Clemmitt Sigler To: Michael.McLagan@LinuxStandards.Org Subject: Trademark issues -- An open letter Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mike, I've held my tounge so far in the current atmosphere of bad blood and evil feelings. But now I think I've got something useful to say. And it's simply this: Chill, dude! The "battle" with LI wouldn't have started if you hadn't claimed that the Linux (R) mark was invalid, at least that's my understanding based on what I read of the correspondences on the 'net today. As you've since found out, it *is* being protected, in fact, by Linus himself. I think it's great that Linus contacted you personally and that you respected his wishes. I'm sure a lot of people in the Linux (R) community realize that cooperation is the only way to help Linux (R) and Linux (R) apps, commercial or otherwise, grow in a MicroSoft (TM) world. But cooperation is a two-way street. If your actions are generally judged by those in the Linux (R) community to be non-cooperative, usurping, etc., then you'll be on the hurting end of *alot* of 'net anger. Linux (R) users outnumber the members of your organization a million to one. So my advice (FWIW) is: 1.) If you want to help Linux (R), please consult with known members of the Linux (R) developer and distribution community first. You don't have to follow their advice, but do get their input. Ths will lend much credibility to your efforts; 2.) Please resist making any claims on ownership of any particular part of Linux (R) or its name. Linux (R) is a cooperative effort, so it's one of those everybody-owns-it-but-nobody-owns-it situations; 3.) Please respond to critism gently. One way you'll convince people you're serious is if you keep a level above those who resort to bitter name-calling tactics. It's totally the business of LSA whether it charges for voting membership, charter members have a veto over all decisions, etc. No one can make that decision but you. Others may criticize you, but it's all up to you. But please don't respond to critism with more criticism. That only makes the flame war worse. Hope this helps. Clemmitt Sigler Received: from domains.invweb.net (root@domains.invweb.net [198.182.196.32]) by alphamb2.phys.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA03091 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from os2smp.dev.invlogic.com (mmclagan@os2smp.dev.invlogic.com [198.182.196.17]) by domains.invweb.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA08062 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:50:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199808211850.OAA08062@domains.invweb.net> From: "Michael McLagan" To: "Clemmitt Sigler" Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:50:22 -0400 Reply-To: "Michael McLagan" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.00.0150 for OS/2 Warp 3.00 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Trademark issues -- An open letter On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:46:05 -0400 (EDT), Clemmitt Sigler wrote: >Mike, > >I've held my tounge so far in the current >atmosphere of bad blood and evil feelings. >But now I think I've got something useful >to say. And it's simply this: Chill, dude! >The "battle" with LI wouldn't have started >if you hadn't claimed that the Linux (R) >mark was invalid, at least that's my understanding >based on what I read of the correspondences on >the 'net today. As you've since found out, >it *is* being protected, in fact, by Linus >himself. There's a significant difference between selective enforcement and protecing a trademark. How many 1000s of sites exist which do not have the (R) and are not being required to display it. Linux International doesn't even have the (R). >So my advice (FWIW) is: > >1.) If you want to help Linux (R), please consult >with known members of the Linux (R) developer and >distribution community first. You don't have >to follow their advice, but do get their input. >Ths will lend much credibility to your >efforts; Do you know who we contacted? Do you know who were sent requests for comment and "here's our website" messages? No. You don't know for example taht I spoke to Linus on the phone myself for the better part of 20 minutes about this. You have no justification for suggesting that I didn't consult with known members of the community. Besides, I run www.linux.org, I'm pretty well known. >2.) Please resist making any claims on ownership >of any particular part of Linux (R) or its name. >Linux (R) is a cooperative effort, so it's one of >those everybody-owns-it-but-nobody-owns-it >situations; I didn't say I owned the name. I didn't say I owned any part of Linux. Kindly sort out what I've said from the retoric of others. What I said is NOBODY owns the name. NOBODY owns Linux, which means I've as much right to do with it waht I want as you or the next guy does. >3.) Please respond to critism gently. One way >you'll convince people you're serious is if you >keep a level above those who resort to bitter >name-calling tactics. I don't think you'll find that I've done any name calling. I may well have made some choice comments and thrown out a suggestion or two, but I can hardly be quoted as name calling. >It's totally the business of LSA whether it >charges for voting membership, charter members >have a veto over all decisions, etc. No one can >make that decision but you. Others may criticize >you, but it's all up to you. But please don't >respond to critism with more criticism. That >only makes the flame war worse. Hope this >helps. I believe I have taken a very reasonable appropach to responding to the criticisms online and offline. I'm not the inflamatory personage that the people on slashdot would like me to be. which of course only serves to infuriate them more. As you can see from my response to you, it's calm, rational and reasonable. Michael McLagan Linux Standards Association Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Clemmitt Sigler To: Michael McLagan Subject: Re: Trademark issues -- An open letter In-Reply-To: <199808211850.OAA08062@domains.invweb.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi again Michael, On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Michael McLagan wrote: > There's a significant difference between selective enforcement > and protecing a trademark. How many 1000s of sites exist which > do not have the (R) and are not being required to display it. > > Linux International doesn't even have the (R). I'm sure if you mention this to Linus and LI they will pursue this issue and correct any problems as rapidly as possible. Were their approach to Linux (R) and its development and publication hypocritical, they would not have gotten such a large community of people so squarely behind them. > Do you know who we contacted? Do you know who were sent requests > for comment and "here's our website" messages? No. You don't know > for example taht I spoke to Linus on the phone myself for the better > part of 20 minutes about this. You have no justification for > suggesting that I didn't consult with known members of the > community. Besides, I run www.linux.org, I'm pretty well known. Yes, but running linux.org doesn't make you any different from Joe User or any other Linux (R) schlub such as myself. That's what the current Linux (R) community is all about, parity in use and development. That's part of the Open Source (TM) development model, as I understand it. Everybody can contribute and have a say, so that thousands of people find bugs and make software work much better. The reason I said "at least that's my understanding" is because I didn't know the whole story, but had read a number of threads as well as http://linux-howto.com/linux.trademark, that's all. If a contentous issue arises and you can document your participation in said issue on your web site and refer people who don't like what you said or did to that, then that would help allay a lot of criticism. In other words, "I didn't do what others claim, and here's the proof." I'm curious to know if you contacted Linus, any of the distributions, any of the other well-known developers or community leaders before you posted the LSA announcement and web site? I honestly don't know, but it was my understanding that you had not contacted Red Hat or Debian before announcing. Again, this comes from posts I read on slashdot and other Linux (R) sites. > I didn't say I owned the name. I didn't say I owned any part > of Linux. Kindly sort out what I've said from the retoric of > others. What I said is NOBODY owns the name. NOBODY owns Linux, > which means I've as much right to do with it waht I want as you > or the next guy does. Well, my understanding is, maybe, maybe not. I'm not a lawyer. But your decision to tell people who filed for the trademark and fought for it with Della Croce, through the good guises of some excellent lawyers who did all their work pro bono, was IMHO not wise. They fought to prove Linus owns the mark, and they won. At least that's my understanding not being a lawyer. Are you a patent and trademark lawyer? > I don't think you'll find that I've done any name calling. > I may well have made some choice comments and thrown out a > suggestion or two, but I can hardly be quoted as name calling. I stand corrected. I can't find any reference where you have called names, although others who have posted may have. But using bold and all caps in your slashdot posting is the 'net equivalent of shouting, which is regarded as impolite. You may not know this if you haven't heard much about what's frequently called netiquette. I hope this will help you in future posts you make on slashdot or elsewhere. > I believe I have taken a very reasonable appropach to responding > to the criticisms online and offline. I'm not the inflamatory > personage that the people on slashdot would like me to be. which > of course only serves to infuriate them more. As you can see > from my response to you, it's calm, rational and reasonable. Likewise, I hope you see my response as calm, rational, and reasonable. I would appreciate it if you would answer my above questions concerning whom you contacted before announcing the LSA and whether you're a patent and trademark lawyer, as well as e-mailing Linus and LI with your reasonable complaint concerning the Linux (R) trademark on the LI (and other) sites. Thanks for corresponding. This has indeed become a contentous issue. Clemmitt Sigler Received: from domains.invweb.net (root@domains.invweb.net [198.182.196.32]) by alphamb2.phys.vt.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA04010 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 01:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from os2smp.dev.invlogic.com (mmclagan@os2smp.dev.invlogic.com [198.182.196.17]) by domains.invweb.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA22613 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 01:13:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199808220513.BAA22613@domains.invweb.net> From: "Michael McLagan" To: "Clemmitt Sigler" Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 01:13:21 -0400 Reply-To: "Michael McLagan" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.00.0150 for OS/2 Warp 3.00 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Trademark issues -- An open letter On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT), Clemmitt Sigler wrote: >Hi again Michael, > >On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Michael McLagan wrote: >> There's a significant difference between selective enforcement >> and protecing a trademark. How many 1000s of sites exist which >> do not have the (R) and are not being required to display it. >> >> Linux International doesn't even have the (R). > >I'm sure if you mention this to Linus and LI they will pursue >this issue and correct any problems as rapidly as possible. >Were their approach to Linux (R) and its development and publication >hypocritical, they would not have gotten such a large community >of people so squarely behind them. Linus is not involved in LI. LI has been informed since they issued their cease and desist to me. They have not changed the page. They only sent the lawyer to the LSA to intimidate, not because they have a strong belief that the trademark is important. >> Do you know who we contacted? Do you know who were sent requests >> for comment and "here's our website" messages? No. You don't know >> for example taht I spoke to Linus on the phone myself for the better >> part of 20 minutes about this. You have no justification for >> suggesting that I didn't consult with known members of the >> community. Besides, I run www.linux.org, I'm pretty well known. > >Yes, but running linux.org doesn't make you any different from >Joe User or any other Linux (R) schlub such as myself. That's what >the current Linux (R) community is all about, parity in use and >development. That's part of the Open Source (TM) development >model, as I understand it. Everybody can contribute and have >a say, so that thousands of people find bugs and make software >work much better. In fact, it does. You said that we had not consulted well known members. I am a well known member. Just because the rank and file users dont know my name doesn't mean that the upper echelons are unaware of my work, contributions and perspectives. >The reason I said "at least that's my understanding" is because I >didn't know the whole story, but had read a number of threads as >well as http://linux-howto.com/linux.trademark, that's all. If a >contentous issue arises and you can document your participation in >said issue on your web site and refer people who don't like what >you said or did to that, then that would help allay a lot of >criticism. In other words, "I didn't do what others claim, and >here's the proof." I'd like to know why I am expected to explain my actions. I can do with Linux whatever I like. No single user nor collection of users has the right to tell me I can't take Linux, edit the files and publish as Berdlaxt OS? I haven't laid claim to Linux, the Linux code or the Linux name. I setup a table, hung out a shingle and an ivitation that said "come sit at my table and lets talk". Nothing sinister in that. >I'm curious to know if you contacted Linus, any of the distributions, >any of the other well-known developers or community leaders before you >posted the LSA announcement and web site? I honestly don't know, but >it was my understanding that you had not contacted Red Hat or >Debian before announcing. Again, this comes from posts I read >on slashdot and other Linux (R) sites. Something which is complained about a lot but has no basis is that the LSA didn't talk to the community. Our website went online on Aug 11th, and was revised on Aug 17th for the press release. Between Aug 11th and the 17th, it was visited by: RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, a user from CWIA, Corel, EST software, MetroLink (4 different machines), an Ameritech customer from Chicago, someone from thehubbardgroup.com, someone from entropy.ucsc.edu, WaldenTesting.com, hitachi.com, vslib.cz, darkelf.net, etc These are logged by the web server. I can produce logs if it becomes necessary. >> I didn't say I owned the name. I didn't say I owned any part >> of Linux. Kindly sort out what I've said from the retoric of >> others. What I said is NOBODY owns the name. NOBODY owns Linux, >> which means I've as much right to do with it waht I want as you >> or the next guy does. > >Well, my understanding is, maybe, maybe not. I'm not a lawyer. >But your decision to tell people who filed for the trademark >and fought for it with Della Croce, through the good guises >of some excellent lawyers who did all their work pro bono, >was IMHO not wise. They fought to prove Linus owns the >mark, and they won. At least that's my understanding >not being a lawyer. Are you a patent and trademark >lawyer? The same lawyer that took the case for Linus and LI gave me the advice I stated on those pages. Infact I hired him to handle a small trademark issue for me. Had I not had confidence in his advice, I would not have posted my comments regarding the legitimacy of the trademark. I still believe, despite having followig Linus personal request, that the mark is invalid. >> I don't think you'll find that I've done any name calling. >> I may well have made some choice comments and thrown out a >> suggestion or two, but I can hardly be quoted as name calling. > >I stand corrected. I can't find any reference where you have >called names, although others who have posted may have. But using >bold and all caps in your slashdot posting is the 'net equivalent >of shouting, which is regarded as impolite. You may not know this >if you haven't heard much about what's frequently called netiquette. >I hope this will help you in future posts you make on slashdot or >elsewhere. I was quoted as using a sentence in caps in a private email that made it online for all to see. I did use and caps in my trademark post to bring out certain single words, but that' more of an emphasis thing than a scream and shout. As for 'netiquette', it almost sounds like you're being rather condescending. I've been on the internet since '91 and using BITNET since '86, so I think I've got some history of participating in the net, and I know what is and isn't generally acceptable. >> I believe I have taken a very reasonable appropach to responding >> to the criticisms online and offline. I'm not the inflamatory >> personage that the people on slashdot would like me to be. which >> of course only serves to infuriate them more. As you can see >> from my response to you, it's calm, rational and reasonable. > >Likewise, I hope you see my response as calm, rational, and >reasonable. I would appreciate it if you would answer my above >questions concerning whom you contacted before announcing the LSA >and whether you're a patent and trademark lawyer, as well as >e-mailing Linus and LI with your reasonable complaint concerning >the Linux (R) trademark on the LI (and other) sites. Thanks >for corresponding. This has indeed become a contentous issue. I have done so. Michael McLagan Linux Standards Association. Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 04:42:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Clemmitt Sigler To: Michael McLagan Subject: Re: Trademark issues -- An open letter In-Reply-To: <199808220513.BAA22613@domains.invweb.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Michael, On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Michael McLagan wrote: > Linus is not involved in LI. LI has been informed since they issued their > cease and desist to me. They have not changed the page. They only sent the > lawyer to the LSA to intimidate, not because they have a strong belief that > the trademark is important. True, but I'm sure he would have pull with them, just as he did with you, n'est pas? If you have a problem with the way they operate, just ask Linus to be fair and make the same request of them that he made of you. That's all. Linus strikes me, above all, as being a fair and honest person. > In fact, it does. You said that we had not consulted well known members. I > am a well known member. Just because the rank and file users dont know my > name doesn't mean that the upper echelons are unaware of my work, > contributions and perspectives. The users are aware of *who*you*are*, the first time I heard about LSA somebody said "this is the same guy that operates linux.org." So you consulted yourself? That must have taken alot of effort. Again, Debian and Red Hat were apparently unaware of your formation of the LSA prior to your announcement from what I read of this issue, and were still uncertain how to reply as of Friday. They were still undergoing internal conversations concerning LSA. > I'd like to know why I am expected to explain my actions. I can do with > Linux whatever I like. No single user nor collection of users has the > right to tell me I can't take Linux, edit the files and publish as Berdlaxt > OS? I haven't laid claim to Linux, the Linux code or the Linux name. > > I setup a table, hung out a shingle and an ivitation that said "come sit at my > table and lets talk". Nothing sinister in that. Also true. In fact, from what I read about LI's cease and desist e-mail to you, Linus said he didn't want to (and no one else should) keep you from using the Linux (R) name. Again, from what I read, there's general agreement among the movers and shakers that Linux (R) standards are needed to encourage commercial ports. The root of your idea and Association seems to have support amongst the senior developer types. At least that's my reading of it. As far as explaining your actions, you shouldn't have to. If people want to play with your Association, they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. I hope you'll accept this in the spirit in which it's meant. I don't mean to be belittling, condescending, or mean-spirited. But I personally find the "attitude" you bring to your responses to be at least mildly agressive and inflammatory. If you're upset that people are reacting with anger towards your LSA push, try responding with kindness, not in kind. More flys with honey than with vinegar and all that, you know :^) > Something which is complained about a lot but has no basis is that the LSA > didn't talk to the community. Our website went online on Aug 11th, and was > revised on Aug 17th for the press release. Between Aug 11th and the 17th, it > was visited by: RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, a user from CWIA, Corel, EST software, > MetroLink (4 different machines), an Ameritech customer from Chicago, someone > from thehubbardgroup.com, someone from entropy.ucsc.edu, WaldenTesting.com, > hitachi.com, vslib.cz, darkelf.net, etc > > These are logged by the web server. I can produce logs if it becomes > necessary. So you put out your web site and people visited? OK. So what? IMHO, if you had put a little effort into contacting important players in the Linux (R) community, things would have gone smoother. But it appears to me that you exerted no effort at all. And you wonder why people were caught off-guard and responded hastily and perhaps without full consideration. People visiting your web site and "talk[ing] to the community" are two vastly different things. On reconsideration, you may see my point here. I know others will. Producing your web server logs here won't help you, IMHO. > The same lawyer that took the case for Linus and LI gave me the advice I > stated on those pages. Infact I hired him to handle a small trademark issue > for me. Had I not had confidence in his advice, I would not have posted my > comments regarding the legitimacy of the trademark. I still believe, despite > having followig Linus personal request, that the mark is invalid. But you do have to challenge it in court to prove that. Until then, the ball is in your court on this issue. I think it's excellent that you took the initiative and contacted the Linux (R) mark lawyer. You should be commended for that and for making the effort to get these facts straight. One thing I wonder is, why do you care whether the mark is invalid or not? What difference does it make to you? Your action in calling it invalid severely inflamed the whole issue of LSA. If you would think before you act, especially out of anger or at the very least frustration, you would be making a good-faith act by turning down the heat on this whole LSA issue. This could buy you a whole lot of credit and credibility in the Linux (R) online community, I believe. > I was quoted as using a sentence in caps in a private email that made it > online for all to see. I did use and caps in my trademark post to bring > out certain single words, but that' more of an emphasis thing than a scream > and shout. As for 'netiquette', it almost sounds like you're being rather > condescending. I've been on the internet since '91 and using BITNET since > '86, so I think I've got some history of participating in the net, and I know > what is and isn't generally acceptable. So you did use all caps and bold even though you knew it would be considered impolite? Again, this can only help to inflame, not resolve, issues. You're the one who's acting like a spoiled child here. That's another prime reason why people have taken such a dislike to you since you announced the LSA. This will get you nowhere fast. Remember, more flys with honey than vinegar? If you think I'm being condescending again, at this point you're probably correct. I've lost a lot of respect for you based solely on your private e-mail replies to me. I'm sorry if this offends you, it's merely a statement of fact in this case. > I have done so. And I appreciate it. At this point, I know you most likely don't care for input from somebody like me, but I'll say it again anyway: 1.) Reply to vile-filled replies, threats, etc., with kindness, and at least some peole will start to change their mind about you and your Association. Try hard not to "fight fire with fire"; 2.) Try to enlist the support of existing Linux (R) organizations, distributions, and developers. It's a little late to be doing this, IMHO. You should have done this in the beginning, taking an active rather than a passive role, i.e., just letting people surf your web site. If you do these two things, I think you can turn this "flame war" concerning the LSA around in your favor. If you don't care what I think, no need to reply to me. At this point it strikes me that we're just going around in circles with our e-mail correspondence. Anyway, thanks for listening. Clemmitt Sigler