The trademarks owned by the Linux Foundation are listed here: www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademarks Neither “systemd” or “segmentation fault” are listed. Something smells funky here.
If you're implying that there's an issue with copyright law then I have to say that's a pretty naive thing to do, given how famously rock solid those statutes are known to be
Isn’t that what copyright/patent trolls are? People who lodge complaints on the behalf of others, regardless of whether or not the original owner of the intellectual property actually cares, or in some cases, even is legally allowed to do so? If it’s the original owner, then it’s usually just considered to be protecting property.
Well damn, I guess fraud must be a lot more widespread than I thought. Because no one seems to get punished for this behavior. Just recently, Lockpick, a tool for getting Nintendo Switch roms off a physical device, was dmca’d, and the person who filed the complaint admitted to doing so on twitter. They received no punishment.
Unless the company you’re impersonating does something, nothing will happen. Hosts like Twitch and YouTube don’t care about whether or not a DMCA is fraud because it’s just easier for them to remove the content and delegate resolution to not them. It’s easy to abuse and often is; no one with money cares enough to do anything.
The best example I know of is Microsoft buying up insanely broad patents that can be marginally related to Linux, getting Suse to say Linux totally infringed on Microsoft’s patents in exchange for not getting sued and selling Linux licences to MS, and then harrasing the shit out of every Linux software and hardware manufacturer for over a decade. They stopped when they realised Linux is not going down and that they depend on it for their infrastructure, and that EEE is a better strategy overall. So now they gave away those patents, and Suse is out while Canonical is in.
Are we certain this complaint was lodged by the Linux Foundation? Frequently DMCA takedowns happen because someone who is not the original rights holder made the complaint. Even when there’s no actual rights being violated. Essentially people taking advantage of automated systems or just people not wanting to deal with possible legal issues, trolling of a different sort.
I agree. Of the 188 marks registered to “The Linux Foundation” with the USPTO, there does not appear to be a mark for “systemd”, “fsck”, or “segmentation fault.” My guess is this is an imposter claim and the artist should counter notice this claim to Redbubble.
FWIW (and assuming the link works) here’s the marks ever registered to the Linux Foundation.
The complaint is not about the terms “systemd” and “segmentation fault.” Those are the titles of the affected artworks. Presumably the artworks themselves contain some trademarked property.
I can understand Systemd being trademarked, but does the Linux Foundation own the trademark for Systemd…? Surely not. I’d think Red Hat before I thought Linux Foundation.
Any forks of systemd will have to be renamed to something obviously different from plain “systemd”, but forks already work that way. We are not, for example, using “XFree86” even though the current X Window System is derived from XFree86 code.
Nor must the program files (shell commands, etc) be renamed. OpenSSH still uses the program file name ssh for compatibility, despite “SSH” being a trademark belonging to someone else.
The only dogma systemd has broken is that booting has to be slow, complicated, and unreliable. Good riddance.
The only dogma systemd has broken is that booting has to be slow, complicated, and unreliable.
This was a solved problem before systemd was a thing. And, even if we assumed that Upstart (2006), OpenRC (2007) and others wouldn’t have existed in 2010: How often do you need to reboot your system before the intrusiveness of systemd is worth it?
In Upstart’s readiness protocol, daemons are expected to SIGSTOP themselves to signal readiness to the process supervisor. This design is extremely questionable, to put it politely.
OpenRC still relies on System V shell scripts, and therefore is not an improvement.
“[T]he intrusiveness of systemd” means nothing to me. I care about what it can do and how well, not whether it’s liked by change-fearing graybeards.
The number of reboots required before the effort to learn systemd becomes worth it is approximately 1. Shell-script-based shutdowns frequently hang, and when they don’t, they take 30+ seconds to shut the system down. Systemd can shut the system down in 5 to 10 seconds. Hallelujah and good riddance to what was one of my least favorite parts of the Linux experience.
Well yes, its a storefront where anyone can sell “their” designs for a cut, the thing is, redbubble has basically no process for making sure that’s all happening above board.
this has nothing even remotely to do with patents, fam
but it is indeed bullshit.
the purpose of a "trademark" is to prevent the public from being deceived about what they're purchasing, so you can't sell "Big Macs" on your own because the public might be deceived into thinking they were purchasing a product from McDonalds, which (I assume) has trademarked the use of "Big Mac" for fast food.
I HIGHLY doubt the Linux Foundation owns the trademark for "Segmentation Fault" with respect to random merch, so... yeah 100% bullshit
(The image does also say "Linux IP" in addition to "Linux Trademark" and I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean, since "IP" covers a multitude of dissimilar things, maybe it's just a vague handwavy assertion they make in order to make a takedown without particularly justifying it?)
Funny you should use Big Mac as an example, since McDonalds actually lost that trademark in Europe due to some legal dispute with a pub in Ireland or something
“Patent troll” and “required actions to preserve trademarks” are two totally different things. The former is objectively bad in all ways. The second is explainable if there truly is a trademark and said gear infringes on the trademark and may be excusable if the Linux Foundation is forced to act to preserve their branding (trademark law is weird). It’s even more explainable if this is a shitty auto filter some paralegal had to build without any technical review because IP law firms are hot fucking mess. I’m also very curious to see the original graphics which I couldn’t find on Mastodon. If they are completely unrelated and there was an explicit action by someone who knew better, the explanation provides no excuse.
Attacking any company because the trademark process is stupid doesn’t accomplish much more than attacking someone paying taxes for participating in capitalism.
Why does the Linux Foundation even have a trademark process for “segmentation fault”? According to the poster on Mastodon, these words were the whole design.
Linux is the imposter here. Segmentation fault refers to how the PDP-(I forget) hardware organized memory. It comes from the original unix implementation which linux has never had any part of.
x86 and x86_64 still have segment registers so it’s not exactly entirely archaic, but they’re not really relevant so that doesnt change what you said. I dont have the exact details on who implemented segmentation first, so I cant elaborate on that.
It does matter because projects like *BSD can prove continuous usage of the term. As such either the trademark is easy to break (it is common use), or it can only be a trademark in very specific contexts that are unlikely to apply.
Sure, what I was saying is that whether someone else created it in the 70s isn’t significant for trademark law. If multiple entities have been using it since then without claiming exclusivity would be significant.
They aren’t satinf they have a trademark on the phrase ‘ segmentation fault’. They are saying the artwork called ‘segmentation fault’ contains a trademarked image/logo/whatever
Doing a search on the USPTO shows no mark for that combination of words. Did the poster share the design? Because either there’s more to the story on their side or there’s more to the Linux Foundation side. For example, an overworked paralegal with no concept of what terms to include. Alternatively, someone being an asshole with a SLAPP suit. We need more information.
My comment contains “if” because, speaking from professional expertise, there is a good possibility this is happening because of either a legal agreement I don’t have insight into so I can’t comment on or because of incompetence. It could also be happening from malice which, imo, is the kind of SLAPP bullshit Nintendo is deservedly attacked for. I’m not trying fanboy anything here; I’m just saying we need more information for pitchforks. The Linux Foundation has my implicit assumption of positive intent (unlike, say, Nintendo), so I’m willing to wait and see what happened here before I start attacking The Linux Foundation for something we have a screenshot from Mastodon on.
If you believe my professional opinion is wrong, I would love to learn more about why.
Add comment