Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:30:28 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers? Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000312160425.00b16e80@localhost> In-Reply-To: <38CC1B24.6FBE4E7D@gorean.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003112034290.431-100000@theory8.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <4.2.2.20000312122651.00b1e880@localhost> <4.2.2.20000312144558.04190e80@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:33 PM 3/12/2000 , Doug Barton wrote: > > Yes, but requiring them not to call it FreeBSD would be a very, very > > bad thing. > > Only from your perspective. I can certainly understand why you would >argue this position, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments that >you're right yet. See Paul's message; he makes some persuasive arguments. > > First of all, Linux advocates (who aren't forced to do this) > > would take advantage of the new name to call it a "fork," even if there > > were no fork in development of the base OS, and point to it as a sign > > that the BSDs were fragmenting. This would be horrible PR. > > But we're not after the rabid adolescent boy market, so this really >isn't a factor. It is a very important factor. Articles in the mainstream press and the IT trade press take these things -- or, in fact, any asertions made by the "opinion leaders" of the Linux world, seriously. The assertions in the "Hallowe'en memo" circulated by Eric Raymond have been accepted unquestioningly by many. > > Second, it would throw a great barrier to entry in front of the > > creator(s) of the new distribution: a requirement to establish name > > recognition ex nihilo. > > Yes, absolutely. Once again, for you that's a bad thing. I'm not >convinced yet that it's a bad thing in general. Favoritism toward one vendor in a supposedly "open" project is not a good thing. Nor is a monoculture such as the one we have now. > > Walnut Creek has not faced similar barriers when > > creating its "FreeBSD Power Pak" and other packages which bundle FreeBSD > > with other products. The policy would thus be discriminatory, IMHO. > > But discrimination is not always a bad thing. I WANT the freebsd >trademark owners to be very "discriminating" in who they let use the >name. I say that exactly the opposite should be the case. The success of Linux has shown that the failure of one Linux product -- though nearly every one has Linux in the name -- does not harm the others. The market, by noting problems with bad products and not buying them, ultimately eliminates inferior products which use the name on its own! This is a better, simpler, and COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC mechanism that avoids debates, political wrangling, potential unfairness, or in fact any effort at all on the part of the board. They can concentrate on more important and productive pursuits. > > Finally, it would create an impediment not faced by would-be distributors > > of Linux. One of the selling points of the BSDs are that they are more > > free than Linux. This would turn that around. > > Once again, this is a red herring argument. Nothing prevents you from >taking the _bits_ and using them to your heart's content. That is how >freebsd IS more free than linux. What we're discussing is the name. Trademarks are just another flavor of intellectual property. Just as the project allows its code and documentation to be used widely, it should do the same with its trademarks. > But there is no direct comparison between "linux" and "freebsd". >"Linux" is JUST the kernel, period. The trademark is often applied to much more than just the kernel. "Red Hat Linux," for example, is a trademark that applies to much more than just the kernel. The same is true of FreeBSD. Walnut Creek has several products with "FreeBSD" in the name which include things that the FreeBSD Core Team had no hand in producing -- including Sendmail, BIND, Apache, etc. >I guarantee you that if you tried to >take the red hat linux distribution and put some stuff of your own in it >and marketed it as "red hat linux plus" you would have your ass in a >sling so fast you wouldn't know what hit you. This would be due to the use of the words "Red Hat" rather than the use of the word "Linux." In fact, Red Hat -- in response to a scandal involving CDs sold on eBay -- has agreed that anyone can sell their Linux as-is and call it Linux; they just can't call it "Red Hat." > Also, I don't pretend to know what kind of gymnastics you have to go >through with Linus to put the word "Linux" on your box, but I don't >imagine that just anyone can do it. Linus made some smart moves in that >area because he WAS coming from nowhere and wanted to get his name out >there any way possible. Actually, Linus is very liberal with the trademark -- far, far more liberal than you propose that the FreeBSD Foundation be. And it works. The only time I've *ever* seen Linus deny to anyone the use of the mark is in a case where the use was derogatory. >Our starting position is light years ahead of >that, and we should act accordingly. Exactly the opposite is true. FreeBSD is starting as a "dark horse." To prevent MANY people from using the name is to hurt its chances to rise to prominence. > > If this were the case, Walnut Creek should not be allowed to do it either. > > Unless of course the trademark owners believe that WC's efforts will >enhance the value of the brand. And therefore are willing to "play favorites?" Sorry, no deal. This is the antithesis of the philosophy of open source and of the BSDs in general. If WC is allowed to do it, anyone else who wants to do something similar should be allowed to attempt the same thing. Even if they might fail. To do anything different is to lock WC into its position of dominance. > But this isn't a first grade schoolyard. This is business. Sometimes >business isn't "fair." Walnut Creek is a business, as would be most of the competitive distributors. But the FreeBSD Foundation, as a non-profit, will have an obligation to be evenhanded. If not, it will not be a legitimate non-profit and will be denied its tax exemption due to problems with what is called "personal inurement." > > But I would not advocate this. Rather, I would encourage broad use of the mark. > > Of course you would, you have a financial interest in doing so. So would ANYONE who might want to get into the business of reselling FreeBSD or FreeBSD-related products. So will FreeBSD users, who would gain more options and will likely see more available application software. Opportunities for developers and contract programmers will likewise become more widespread if the name becomes better known. In short, EVERY FREEBSD USER AND DEVELOPER has an interest in seeing the mark used broadly, just as the Linux trademark is today. --Brett Glass 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?4.2.2.20000312160425.00b16e80>