Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 14:33:08 -0800 From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.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: <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
Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 02:35 PM 3/12/2000 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > You guys are comparing apples and oranges and calling it mincemeat.
> >There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone at all from taking every
> >bit of the FreeBSD code, slapping a new installer on it, and selling it
> >to their heart's content, as long as they don't try to call it FreeBSD.
> >That's true now, and it will continue to be true after the merger.
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> > Now, where you run into difficulty is when you want to take the FreeBSD
> >code, add bits to it and CALL IT FREEBSD. Now you're running into
> >trademark issues. The owner of a trademark has a legal responsibility to
> >protect its property. If the trademark owner lets every Tom, Dick and
> >Harry use their trademark on other products their legal (civil)
> >protections for that trademark get watered down.
>
> Not so. This has not happened with Linux, and in fact the variety of
> distributions of Linux which are CALLED Linux has helped to create a critical
> mass for it. Had Caldera, Red Hat, etc. all had to call their distributions
> something other than Linux, the Linux phenomenon would not have happened.
But there is no direct comparison between "linux" and "freebsd".
"Linux" is JUST the kernel, period. 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. Comparing a given linux
distribution to the freebsd "distribution" is a much more intellectually
honest comparison.
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. Our starting position is light years ahead of
that, and we should act accordingly.
> > Therefore, I (as a proud freebsd contributor) WANT the core
> >team/foundation/whoever to jealously guard the freebsd name. Frankly, I
> >am ambivalent about whether or not anyone else should be allowed to make
> >what amounts to a "linux-like distribution" of FreeBSD.
>
> 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.
> It
> would have to be required to take the "FreeBSD Power Pak," for example, off
> the market or rename it. After all, this is exactly what the product does:
> "add bits to it and call it FreeBSD."
>
> Fair is fair.
But this isn't a first grade schoolyard. This is business. Sometimes
business isn't "fair."
> 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.
--
"Welcome to the desert of the real."
- Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix"
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?38CC1B24.6FBE4E7D>