Linus trademarks Linux
-
I thought it was a hoax, but I found another article[^] on it. Still, it could be a hoax... :~ Cheers, Vikram.
http://www.geocities.com/vpunathambekar "You still have the coolest name on CodeProject." — David Wulff to me.
-
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: MORE THAN 90 Australian companies have been asked to pay a licence fee for Linux software in a move apparently backed by the software’s eminence grise, Linus Torvalds.[^] So they finally found a way to make money out of open-source :-D Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
This apparently has to do with Australian Trademark law and to establish 'Linux' as a registered trademark in Australia, and not Linus's pocket like every would like to believe. xacc-ide 0.0.15 now with C#, MSIL, C, XML, ASP.NET, Nemerle, MyXaml and HLSL coloring - Screenshots
-
This apparently has to do with Australian Trademark law and to establish 'Linux' as a registered trademark in Australia, and not Linus's pocket like every would like to believe. xacc-ide 0.0.15 now with C#, MSIL, C, XML, ASP.NET, Nemerle, MyXaml and HLSL coloring - Screenshots
leppie wrote: This apparently has to do with Australian Trademark law and to establish 'Linux' as a registered trademark in Australia The same with the US version (LMI). although $200 a year for small business seems a bit much, just to use the name. And one amight ask why that demonic comany, Microsoft does not charge similar fees to protect it's trademark. Sounds more like some geek Lawyers (now there's a concept) have figured out how to make money off of linux. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
leppie wrote: This apparently has to do with Australian Trademark law and to establish 'Linux' as a registered trademark in Australia The same with the US version (LMI). although $200 a year for small business seems a bit much, just to use the name. And one amight ask why that demonic comany, Microsoft does not charge similar fees to protect it's trademark. Sounds more like some geek Lawyers (now there's a concept) have figured out how to make money off of linux. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Microsoft wouldn't charge you, they'd SUE you. (Go out and try to sell a "Microsoft Wombat".) Linus isn't charging people for using linux; he's charging people for using the trademarked term, "Linux." e.g. if you sell "Linux Wombat," then you pay a license fee to use the term Linux. Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away.
-
Microsoft wouldn't charge you, they'd SUE you. (Go out and try to sell a "Microsoft Wombat".) Linus isn't charging people for using linux; he's charging people for using the trademarked term, "Linux." e.g. if you sell "Linux Wombat," then you pay a license fee to use the term Linux. Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away.
Microsft does not charge you for using "Microsoft Windows consulting" as a description for your firm. LMI would want $200 for calling yourself a "Linux consultant" according to their lincence fee descriptions... upsdude wrote: Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away. So? it's still rather egregious for supposedly "open source", free software whose viral license requires you make YOUR source open if you use it. Furthermore, it's not the software they are licensing, its the use of the NAME. And if I'm not making a profit, I'll find a new line of business rather quickly. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Microsft does not charge you for using "Microsoft Windows consulting" as a description for your firm. LMI would want $200 for calling yourself a "Linux consultant" according to their lincence fee descriptions... upsdude wrote: Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away. So? it's still rather egregious for supposedly "open source", free software whose viral license requires you make YOUR source open if you use it. Furthermore, it's not the software they are licensing, its the use of the NAME. And if I'm not making a profit, I'll find a new line of business rather quickly. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote: it's still rather egregious for supposedly "open source", free software whose viral license requires you make YOUR source open if you use it. A point of view which goes back to the unfortunate double meaning of the word "free".
-
To which I say "I told you so." This is only the tip of the proverbial iceburg. With the holding company of Firefox going public, it is only a matter of time before even more such companies go public and turn their software into commercial ventures. Ironically, it isn't just greed on their part, but the demands of their customers that will drive this. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
leppie wrote: This apparently has to do with Australian Trademark law and to establish 'Linux' as a registered trademark in Australia The same with the US version (LMI). although $200 a year for small business seems a bit much, just to use the name. And one amight ask why that demonic comany, Microsoft does not charge similar fees to protect it's trademark. Sounds more like some geek Lawyers (now there's a concept) have figured out how to make money off of linux. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Because it encourages the use of Microsoft software? The tigress is here :-D
-
Microsoft wouldn't charge you, they'd SUE you. (Go out and try to sell a "Microsoft Wombat".) Linus isn't charging people for using linux; he's charging people for using the trademarked term, "Linux." e.g. if you sell "Linux Wombat," then you pay a license fee to use the term Linux. Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away.
upsdude wrote: Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away. That's not true. According to LMI's sublicense fee page (http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html), you pay $200 even if you do not make a profit.
Non-Profit Tier Annual Fee = US$200 For Profit/Other Tier 1 [This is a "grandfather clause" for written sublicenses executed prior to August 1, 2004] Annual Fee = $0 For Profit/Other Tier 2 [Total projected annual gross revenue between zero and US $100,000] Annual Fee = US $200 For Profit/Other Tier 3 [Total projected annual gross revenue between US $100,000 and US$200,000] Annual Fee = US $500 For Profit/Other Tier 4 [Total projected annual gross revenue between US $200,000 and US $1 million] Annual Fee = US $1000 For Profit/Other Tier 5 [Total projected annual gross revenue over US $1 million] Annual Fee = US $5000
-
To which I say "I told you so." This is only the tip of the proverbial iceburg. With the holding company of Firefox going public, it is only a matter of time before even more such companies go public and turn their software into commercial ventures. Ironically, it isn't just greed on their part, but the demands of their customers that will drive this. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
"Open Source" does not necessarily mean "free". ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
"Open Source" does not necessarily mean "free". ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
I disagree. The Open Source movement has clearly pushed the idea that there is an equivalent. Poll people who have heard of "Open Source" and most will agree. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Microsoft wouldn't charge you, they'd SUE you. (Go out and try to sell a "Microsoft Wombat".) Linus isn't charging people for using linux; he's charging people for using the trademarked term, "Linux." e.g. if you sell "Linux Wombat," then you pay a license fee to use the term Linux. Furthermore, that license fee only happens if you're making a profit; otherwise, it goes away.
