Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:23:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Market share and platform support Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909101252300.14497-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990910090822.0479c6a0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Brett Glass wrote:
> FreeBSD is not the "brand" of Walnut Creek's distribution; it's the
> name of the development project. If Walnut Creek is the only company
> which is allowed to use the name "FreeBSD" on its distribution of the
> OS, then it is being accorded an unfair advantage. This would
> vindicate concerns that Walnut Creek has an exclusive relationship
> with the FreeBSD project that precludes competition, and/or has too
> much control over the project and its output.
If you're doing something that isn't sanctioned by 'The FreeBSD Project',
why do you think you should have the right to use the 'FreeBSD' trademark?
From what it sounds like, you want to make a complete departure from the
methods and manner of 'The FreeBSD Project' and produce something based on
the 'FreeBSD Software'. While the use of the software isn't a problem,
the use of the FreeBSD 'brand' with an effort that isn't 'FreeBSD' is.
> It would also be problematic if a person or committee could "pick and
> choose" who got to use the name. This would fly in the face of the
> BSD philosophy. (It would even rankle those who subscribe to the much
> more restrictive GPL agenda.)
No, it wouldn't. The 'BSD' philosophy gives you the software, not the
name. You're free to say 'contains FreeBSD' or 'based on FreeBSD' but
marketing something as 'FreeBSD' without obtaining permissions is going to
get you in trouble.
I asked my roommate who is a Debian ('Linux') developer and he said that
Debian is pretty much the same with regard to the use of the 'Debian'
brand.
I think the situation you are describing is fairly common, and in all
likelihood, 'the norm' when it comes to trademarks and 'brand names'.
Why you expect the 'FreeBSD Project' to allow you to do something against
the Project's best interests is beyond me. We don't live the same world
as you, that much is obvious.
> The only appropriate policy is to set simple, straightforward,
> published conditions for the use of the trademark by anyone who
> chooses to create a distribution, an add-on product (e.g. "Joe's Nifty
> FreeBSD Tools"), or a publication (e.g. "The Super Mega FreeBSD
> Bonanza Web Site"). The permission granted via this policy should be
> perpetual and irrevocable so long as the conditions in force at the
> time of first use are met (i.e., no changing the rules after someone
> has committed the resources required to create a product).
Nope. The solution is for applictions for use of the trademark to be
approved on a case by case basis and remain subject to revocation should
the use of the trademark fall outside of the original terms of use. This
is the way the rest of the world handles licensing issues.
> Walnut Creek CD-ROM's distribution simply says "FreeBSD" on the front.
> Why should Walnut Creek be the only company which is entitled to do
> this? Any restriction which requires publishers to call a distribution
> "BlobWare FreeBSD" should apply to Walnut Creek as well.
Because Walnut Creek is given a CD master by 'The FreeBSD Project' and
presses it out exactly as they receive it. I'd say the Project is pulling
WC's strings not the other way around.
If you'd like to produce an official FreeBSD distribution I'm sure that
the release engineers would be more than happy to supply you with the
masters and all the cover art.
> >Why the hell would you want to leach on the poor PR that 'FreeBSD' has in
> >the first place?
>
> There's a concept, not totally alien to the BSD world, known as
> "giving credit."
We're talking about PR, not about giving credit. The various licenses
contained in the source require (in some cases) you to give credit.
> Also, using the name "FreeBSD" helps to make it clear that the product
> is designed to run native binaries compiled for FreeBSD -- important
> if we want to encourage the development and publication of such
> products. It also ensures that the product's installed base is counted
> in surveys of FreeBSD's installed base. This is important to FreeBSD's
> reputation and, again, to generate market share numbers that encourage
> ports and support. This helps the entire FreeBSD community.
Correct, but there is a difference b/t using the name 'FreeBSD' and
pretending to be 'The FreeBSD'.
> Imagine what would happen to Linux's market share and installed base
> figures if sales of Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, Debian, Mandrake, etc.
> weren't aggregated. Linux would be going nowhere fast. This would be
> an awful trap for FreeBSD to fall into: it amounts to a forking of PR
> even without a code fork.
They aren't aggregated. Software companies have settled on Red Hat as
their target platform and everyone else has to accomodate them or risk not
being able to run those applications.
Your mistake is somehow thinking that the brandname 'FreeBSD' should work
like the brandname 'Linux'.
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever |
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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9909101252300.14497-100000>