Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:06:51 EST From: "John Daniels" <jmd526@hotmail.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Merger, and ... Message-ID: <20000314180652.44770.qmail@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi:
On Tuesday March 14th, Nik Clayton wrote:
>And to the wider point -- FreeBSD isn't an ISO image. I actually wouldn't
>mind seeing a hard and fast definition of what FreeBSD is.
> ... clipping ...
>Before you can start talking about whether can call something >FreeBSD, you
>need to have a good grasp of what FreeBSD is in the >first place.
Nik makes a point that kind of picks up from an earlier discussion. It may
be that *several* trademarks should be in place to protect the FreeBSD
project. This would be somewhat interesting vis-a-vis Linux in that Linux
has one Trademark for the kernel and many implementations of an OS
("Distros") whereas FreeBSD would have several Trademarks to bring a
structure to the OS (while still preserving innovation) and one "true" OS.
An associated benefit to this "structuring" would be that the FreeBSD name
gets much wider usage and publicity.
Possible trademarks, for example: FreeBSD-Kernel, FreeBSD-OS (to include
kernel+), FreeBSD-SecureOS, FreeBSD-Ports, etc.
With the above Trademark structure, a company would have to acknowledge the
Trademark if using a part of FreeBSD in it's entirety as a *productized
component* of their own product. For example, if using the FreeBSD kernel,
whereas otherwise they could assume wholesale product-level pieces without
attribution. Without such a structure, companies that found it advantageous
could still claim an association with FreeBSD ("based on the FreeBSD(tm)
kernel") but others would simply make an acknowledgement in their code with
no outward sign that FreeBSD was used.
This would not prevent companies from using the code base without
attribution. Apple, for example, uses the Mach kernel and pieces of the
rest of the OS. As far as I know, they don't use ports or the full security
package. This kind of partial use of code would not require outward
acknowledgement of the FreeBSD Trademark(s). Although they don't have to,
Apple, of course, still finds it advantageous to acknowledge it's use of
FreeBSD code!
In sum, under the BSD license, FreeBSD cannot protect the code, but should
be able to protect product level implementations that rely on the FreeBSD
effort. If someone wants to incorporate the kernel in a product, relying
not only on that instance of code but also on the existance of the FreeBSD
project for future upgrades, they should make an outward attribution. Now,
using only the kernel should not obligate a company to call thier product
"FreeBSD," and FreeBSD would not want them to, since "FreeBSD" refers to the
project and the efforts of the group as a whole, the kernel is just a part
of that, so there should be some other trademark that can (must!) be refered
to.
John
On Monday, March 13th, I wrote:
>Clearly, the terms on the use of the trademark should not be overly
>restrictive, but at the same time, a line does have to be drawn: >there
>must be a point defined where one should have the right to call something
>FreeBSD.
>
>So far, the argument has been: how little can I include and still >have the
> right to call my distro "FreeBSD." Perhaps we can >illuminate the issue
>somewhat if we consider it from the opposite >direction? At what point
>should a firm have the *obligation* to >attribute it's product to the
>FreeBSD Foundation? It would seem >that this would also have to be
>addressed since the Trademark holder >is obligated to protect it's
>Trademark.
>
>If I use code snippits, sections or modules, I'm probably OK -- I >can (and
>must) atribute what I have used within the code. This is >standard BSD,
>and end-users do not have to know that they are using >a system with BSD
>code.
>
>But what if XYZ company uses the kernel as a whole? Should that >require
>more noticeable recognition or attribution? What if I use >everything but
>ports? what if I use an exact copy of the first CD? >etc. If the Trademark
>pertains to physical CD's only, then what if >a company includes
>_everything_ but rearranges the contents. Can
>(should?) they be allowed to sell this as "XYZ OS," without any >outward
>attribution to FreeBSD?
>
>Whatever "FreeBSD" is defined as, shouldn't that be the same if we >are
>coming from the lower bounds, as well as from the upper?
>
>I don't know the answer. Maybe there needs to be several Trademarks
>(kernel, distro, security, ports, etc.) I would think that such >policy
>issues will become clearer in the next few weeks and that >they may even
>change somewhat over time.
To which Brad Knowles and Responded soon after:
******************
Brad Knowles:
>The beauty of the BSD license is that you can take any piece of code you
>want, use it any way you want, and you can call it anything you want
>(except where this might infringe on other established trademarks), and as
>I recall the latest versions of the BSD license don't even require that you
>acknowledge the copyright holders in >your advertisements -- only in the
>place(s) where you put your own trademark/copyright notices.
>
>The key here is that if you want to take advantage of the "FreeBSD" brand,
>you've got a much higher standard that you will be held to, because now
>you're taking not only the code, but you're >also trying to market it with
>the same brand.
***************************
Paul Richards:
>These requirements are a feature of the license and not of the
>trademark. The FreeBSD license is very free, it requires nothing and
>only prohibits claiming the work is your own. Some parts of the >system may
>still have the older license that requires attribution in
>advertising but I doubt that that would be enforced given that the
> >newlicense does not include that clause.
>
>The trademark issue is an entirely different matter and has nothing >to do
>with the use of the code. Trademark law exists to prevent >companies
>producing copycat products with the same or similar names >and "tricking"
>consumers into buying the copycat product in the >mistaken belief that it
>is the "real thing".
>
>That is why brown fizzy drinks have to be called cola rather than >coke, it
>doesn't actually stop them producing a similar product but >they must
>create their own branding and not ride on the coat tails >of the coke
>brand.
>
>The crux of the issue is whether the project considers that other
>distributions of FreeBSD would be ripoffs trying to ride on the coat
>tails of the FreeBSD name or wether they would be genuine members of >the
>FreeBSD community.
>
>The concerns being raised, that seem to get lost in the noise, are >that
>the FreeBSD foundation should allow the use of the FreeBSD name >if it does
>not have a detrimental effect on the projec in order to >allow other
>companies to become active members of the FreeBSD >community.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000314180652.44770.qmail>