X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:16:54 -0700 To: Piotr Mitros (by way of NC Labs Sales ) From: Ian@NC-Labs.com (Ian Nandhra) Subject: Re: LSA trademark issue Hi Piotr, The amount of concern that this issue has raised is understandable and I would like to submit the following (skip to the end) : At 05:28 PM 8/21/98 -0700, you wrote: >I'd like to ask you to release your claims to the trademark 'Standard Linux.' >An altavista web search revealed close to half a million references to the >term 'standard Linux.' A fair number predated 1995, and many referred to it >in >exactly the same context as your trademark does (proposals for standardizing >Linux distributions). Most referred to it in a context that would be >considered a violation of your tradmark. This clearly constitutes prior >common usage. It has also been used on the LSB (Linux Standard Base) and, >presumably, the LCS (Linux Compatibility Standard) discussion lists. If I dig >hard, I can also probably find some references to it on early Debian mailing >lists. > >I would suggest switching to a name to the effect of 'LSA Linux Standard' or >'LSA Standard Linux.' I would prefer not to have to go to court over this >issue. > Court? Piotr, this would cost you about $30,000 in attourney fees and about the same for us. AND FOR NO GOOD REASON! So, moving ahead calmly; This entire trademark issue has become a uncontrolled monster. Before I get to the point, I'd like to make it *perfectly* clear that the LSA, I, NC Labs or any affiliates ever wanted the trademark issue raised. As far as we are concerned ___LINUS OWNS IT___ as a result of the payoff of the previous legal case. And before we go any further, we are actually contributing to Open Source. Whilst we did not spell it out, there are no licence restrictions (other than on the stuff we have purchased from 3rd **non open source** organisations). Geez, we are doing some work (for no money) and giving it back to the Community! Linux is about choice, right? And we are not forcing this on anyone. It would seem however that everyone else's choice is being forced on us. And thats wrong. So, that aside, there are a number of legal issues in Linux and Free Software that have never really been examined. It was inevitable that they would receive some attention at some point, and we seem to have unearthed the Trade Mark Monster. The reality is that while LINUS OWNS THE TRADEMARK it is almost impossible to enforce under US Law. It is really unfortunate that others have seen fit to put lawyers onto this issue and the results are disturbing. From what I can see (and I have very limited information) the Linux trademark is owned by Linus but the problems of defending it would be huge. To make this crystal clear EVERYONE AT NC LABS WANTS TO LEAVE THE SITUATION ALONE. Any attempt to put this into court will result in even more trouble. Another legal issue surrounds the almost nuclear tipped subject of the GPL and I dont want to start a holy war about this either. I have been involved in many industry sectors outside the Linux community. About 3 years ago it was established by an Org (I'll leave you to guess which) that the GPL was not legally enforcable. Some debate ensued during which a number of products were released which used GPL code, but without the source release. No, it wasnt me and I was not working for the people concerned. It was also established that it would be better to leave the GPL alone and let the Free Software world continue as only they can. Thats how things stand and _believe me_ I dont even want to think about the concequences of touching it. For your amusement, I have appended my Freshmeat editorial for the 22nd on the LSB. I hope that this has reassured you. If you want to take Legal action, thats fine. But there is nothing to attack or defend. Warm regards, Ian -----8<----- Editorial, 22nd August, 1998. Ian R. Nandhra, President/CEO, NC Laboratories Inc. Before anything else, I would like to thank Bruce Perens for his efforts on the LSB. Bruce's invaluable contribution has resulted in a great deal of discussion and the formation of other groups that will contribute in ways that we will see in weeks to come. The debates will continue. Anyone reading www.slashdot.org this week will realise that it is almost impossible to say or do anything without offending someone on the Net. Slashdot's ( /. ) posting format (completely anonymous) makes this even easier. And complaining about something is much easier than doing something, and much more fun. So lets see how many people object to this: Linux is about Choice, Linux is about Freedom of Choice, Linux promotes Tollerance and Community Spirit, Current rumor has it that a large vendor (lets call them XYZ) will select a Linux distribution to use. Other rumor says they will produce their own. Linux distribution "differentiation" results in a fragmentation which XYX *customers* simply cannot tollerate. XYZ could choose one distribution, eliminating that problem and creating another. They are now tied to a single Linux vendor. The selection of one distribution means the automatic deselection of all the others. A risky strategy for XYZ who have just upset more distribution advocates than they have pleased. Perusing the reasoned debates on /. convince them further that this is not an entirely wise strategy. The "problem" would not arise if there was one Linux - but source code availability means that there are as many potential distributions as there are people to make them. IE; lots. And if XYZ just secretly bundled an available distribution, news of their "choice" would get out into the community very quickly. So back to basics. XYZ evaluates their baseline requirements; 1/ Scalability. 2/ Release Stability. 3/ Update Quality Assurance. Their systems architects and engineers want a scalable system - too much fun to talk about here, lets get dull. The R&D Management want the lowest development overheads (something you never get with a fragmented technology) and low future maintenance costs (IBM maintains code spanning decades, current Linux code will probably still be in use in 20 years from now; source code availability is a very small part of this problem). The QA, Production and Sales people want a completely stable and transparent upgrade path between Linux updates. The Sales people want a seamless upgrade path for their customers (reducing their costs). The QA team want a way to test the Solutions Package to ensure that it meets their customers requirements. Testing involves specifications and specifications in turn involve Standards. Standards are not the end of civilisation! They provide a metric by which a given set of code can be measured against functionality and portability. The POSIX.1 is amazingly successful. It has been incorporated and adopted into the most important portability specifications around (SVID3, 4.4BSD, X/Open's XPG4 Base and its successor, the Single UNIX Specification and thence UNIX98). It has been widely implemented on systems as diverse as VMS, MVS, and MPE/iX, as well as most traditional "UNIX" systems and more recently NT. Most of these implementations are either certified by NIST against the FIPS 151-2 test suite, or warranted by an X/Open UNIX Brand. Portability is about the ability to choose platforms suited to requirements (price, performance, networking, etc.) while still maintaining as much portability as possible for the application source-code developed to a particular specifications model. In the commercial market, it does not matter if the platform is UNIX, Linux, NT, VMS, MVS. It's whether it supports the relevant standards specifications (X/Open, POSIX, NIST FIPS) required by the application that matters. A long time friend used to constantly remind me that: "It's the Applications, Stupid" It was both a joke and a reminder that it's the APPLICATIONS that matter in Linux. And applications porting in the commercial sector require standards conformance. Linux was certified against FIPS 151-2 in 1996 and these Certification tests (and others) are being re-run to see how far Linux has drifted from this original certification (anyone interested should drop me an email). The POSIX.1 standards tests in question are, ironically, freely available. Yet the mere mention of them causes unbelievable amounts of hostility from people that should know better. The mention of standards bodies, or worse still, regulatory boards - just don't even think about it. Existing standards are usually ignored, bypassed or modified as a convenience measure by those with something to lose by their adoption and the consequences to those who *rely* on these standards is simply ignored. These existnig standards endure because developers and *customers* value them. Linux distribution developers must take into consideration that their actions can have huge consequences for those building products on Linux. The argument that Open Source cures this problem (ie we can just type make) is no use if there are tens of thousands of installations involved across a few hundred suppliers and organizations. Freedom of expression carries with it the heavy responsibility to be considerate of others. XYZ have established test and QA proceedures for existing platforms, and a standards conformant Linux would fit right into an existing model. But this would result in XYZ Linux, which might not be wise and does not fit into XYZ business model. However, if other ISV's with similar problems (and very large numbers do) grouped together a single commercial Linux would be possible, aimed at solutions providers. Lets call it "Enterprise Linux" for now. Linux is supposed to be about Choice. Right? Linux is supposed to be about Freedom. Right? Linux is supposed to be about Expression. Right? So there should be nothing wrong with Enterprise Linux. Right? Especially as only those that want to use it will. Right? Well, yes, and no. The potential losers would be the existing Linux Vendors who would (a) have a competing Linux distribution and (b) loose market share. Even worse, there would be limitations on the ability to retain users ("Brand Loyalty"). But the Open Source model ensures that the source code to Enterprise Linux will always be available and those Linux Vendors wanting to can use it as they wish. Or not. As they *CHOOSE*. It's about choice. Right? If Linux really is about Freedom of Choice, organisations like XYZ or anyone else introducing new concepts, be it Standards or Web-Radio, will be welcomed for the contribution that they make. Real World Economics dictate that Software will be both sold and freely available for many years to come. The users have a *choice* - they dont have to use it if they dont want to. They also have the *right* to choose without the risk of being flamed to death on forums such as /. and others just because they choose one thing over another. I believe that Freedom of Expression and Choice is a Right. We enrich our own lives and others around us by mixing these choices. But this is no Free Lunch and this right carries a responsibility with it. The responsibilty to extend the same right to others. The flame wars and intimidation about issues such as Gnome/KDE, LCS/LSA/LSB, RPM/.deb, source/binary distribution, right/wrong, good/evil ;-) insult the very goals we hold dear. As Freedom of Expression gets shouted down, freedom of choice withers and dies. And we all loose. It is not a crime to use commercial software, nor is it a crime to use a Microsoft product. It *is* a crime to abuse those that choose differently from you. It *is* a crime to publicly and privately attack them for being different. Showing them a cool graphic with GIMP is more likely to convince them than a public flaming about Photoshop on Win95. Chances are they will install Linux and use Gimp ;-) Or is ignorance a crime as well? It's about freedom and choice, right? The next time standards and their organisations, Enterprise Linux and alike come up, pause a little and wonder what this will contribute and why those involved are trying to climb the mountains. There is precious little money to be made and no thanks to be gained. The organisations and people behind them are *contributing* to Open Source and to the applications developers that rely on Linux. Just because something is new does not necessarily mean it is bad. What would have happened in 1991 if a Finnish student was ridiculed for announcing 0.02 of Linux? Then as now, it is hard to predict the concequences of our actions. This editorial has strayed away from the LSB theme. But the events of the last 2-3 weeks strayed very, very far away from the "Linux Way" and the ideals I for one thought we cherished and defended. It is possible to contribute to Linux without spending 22 hours a day posting to the Net or writing emails. Lack of high profile lime-light exposure could indicate shyness or a small ego rather than conspiracy theory plot to kidnap a penguin :-) Lack of exposure does not mean lack of value. Have a great weekend, and as a comedian in the UK used to say, "May your God go with you...." (unless you use vi) ;-) -- Ian Nandhra Phone : 209 956 3047 NC Laboratories Inc. FAX : 209 956 1747 Suite G161, 4719 Quail Lakes Drive email : ian@nc-labs.com Stockton, CA 95207, USA. http//www.nc-labs.com