Normally I avoid posting direct comments from mailing lists here, but since Linus posted this on Kernel-dev and says that he hopes Slashdot picks it up, I think that's permission. This message addresses the recent rumors that have been floating around about Linus' lawyers going after domain squatters abusing the Linux Trademark. It's an interesting issue, and one that I'm sure will divide you guys: we've always hated it when domain names are taken from people by others, but this is our beloved Linux Trademark.

The following was written by Linus Torvalds and posted to kernel-dev

I've been getting tons of email about the trademark thing due to the

action of stopping the auctioning off of linux-related names, so instead

of just answering individually (which was how I started out), I'll just

send out a more generic email. And hope that slashdot etc pick it up so

that enough people will be reassured or at least understand the issues.

And hey, you may not end up agreeing with me, but with the transmeta

announcement tomorrow I won't have much time to argue about it until next

week ;)

Basically, the rules are fairly simple, and there really are just a few

simple basic issues involved:

- I (and obviously a lot of other people) do not want to have "Linux" as

a name associated with unacceptable (or borderline) behaviour, and it's

important that "Linux" doesn't get a name of being associated with

scams, cybersquatting, etc etc. I'd personally hate that, for rather

obvious reasons. I _like_ being proud of Linux, and what has been

achieved. I'd rather not have to apologize for it..

- Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the

trademark (unlike, for example, copyright law, where the copyright

owner is the copyright owner, always is, and always will be unless he

willingly relinquishes ownership, and even THEN he ends up having

rights).

This is nasty, because it means, for example, that a trademark owner

has to be shown as caring about even small infringements, because

otherwise the really bad guys can use as their defense that "hey, we

may have misused it, but look at those other cases that they didn't go

after, they obviously don't care.."

- Even with things that aren't scams or something like that, VALID uses

of "Linux" may be bad if they mean that other valid uses of "Linux" are

blocked.

Those are the kind of ground rules, I think everybody can pretty much

agree with them..

What the above leads to is

- I'm required to ask people to acknowledge the trademark. When you use

the term "Linux" in official marketing literature etc, you should

acknowledge it as a trademark owned by me. Not because I love seeing my

name in print, but simply because of the "policing" issue (#2) above.

(And no, that does NOT mean that you have to add that to normal,

everyday use of the term. Common sense rules the day, think of the

situations where you see the silly "xxxx is a trademark of yyyy", and

realize that yyyy may not really care except the legal issues force

them to ;)

- _Intent_ matters. It matters a lot.

If your intent is to use the word "linux" as part of a real Linux

project, that doesn't mean that you automatically absolutely have to

get permission from me. That's the LAST thing I want. I want "Linux" to

be as free as possible as a term, and the real reason for having a

trademark in the first place was to _protect_ it rather than use it as

some kind of legalistic enforcement thing.

But, for example, if your intent is to register "mylinux.com" (made up

example, I don't know if it is registered or not) only in the hopes of

selling the domain name for mucho dinero later, then that kind of

intent is not something I (or anybody else, I think) would find really

acceptable, because now the use of "linux" in this case has really been

a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it

to get money.

This is where the cybersquatting laws come in, for example, allowing

the use of a trademark as a way to make sure that such squatting

activity does NOT happen.

- Being "specific" is _good_. Being specific largely avoids the problem

of many people/organizations wanting the same name. We had an example

long ago of somebody who would have wanted to register "Linux Expert"

as a servicemark, yet obviously that is a pretty generic term. Not

good, if it means that there will be confusion about who owns the term.

In contrast (to give some tangible examples), something like "VA Linux"

or "Red Hat Linux" oviously isn't a generic term: it's a very

_targeted_ term for something very specific. Those kinds of names do

not detract from other peoples ability to call _their_ Linux company

something else.

- Finally, you have to judge the "officialdom" and the importance of

the business side of your usage. Not because I or anybody else

really cares all that much, but more because of the "pain factor" if

the name is asked for by somebody else.

Basically, ask yourself the question: "What if somebody else had a

project, and happened to chose the same name for his project as I have

for mine, how strong a protection do I want for MY version of the

project?"

Also, ask yourself: "Would anybody ever have reason to question the

name, and do I need to make provisions for protecting this particular

instance of it" (and note that "anybody" may not be me as the trademark

owner myself, but it may be a competitor who wants to make life

uncomfortable for you)

If you decide that you want some official protection from the mark,

that probably means that you want to own your own version of the

trademark, ie a "service mark" or a "combination mark". There are

obvious cases where such a thing is wanted - you should not be

surprised to hear that various Linux companies own their own

combination marks, or have at the very least gotten that ownership

verbally approved by me pending getting the paperwork done.

So basically, in case the trademark issue comes up, you should make your

own judgement. If you read and understood the above, you know pretty much

what my motivation is - I hate the paperwork, and I think all of this is

frankly a waste of my time, but I need to do it so that in the future I

don't end up being in a position I like even less.

And I'm _not_ out to screw anybody. In order to cover the costs of

paperwork and the costs of just _tracking_ the trademark issues (and to

really make it a legally binding contract in the first place), if you end

up going the whole nine yards and think you need your own trademark

protection, there is a rather nominal fee(*) associated with combination

mark paperwork etc. That money actually goes to the Linux International

trademark fund, so it's not me scalping people if anybody really thought

that that might be the case ;)

I hope people understand what happened, and why it happened, and why it

really hasn't changed anything that we had to assert the trademark issue

publically for the first time this week. And I hope people feel more

comfortable about it.

And finally - I hope that people who decide due to this that what they

really want is trademark protection for their own Linux trademark, that

they could just wait a week or two, or contact maddog at Linux

International rather than me. We're finally getting the shroud of secrecy

lifted from transmeta (hey, we'll have a real web-site and zdtv is

supposed to webcast the announcement tomorrow), and I'd rather worry about

trademarks _next_ week.

Ok?

Linus

(*) "Nominal fee". What an ugly sentence. It's one of those things that

implies that if you have to ask, you can't afford it. In reality, it's

more a thing where both intent and the size of the project will make a

difference - and quite frankly it's also a way to slightly discourage

people who aren't really serious about it in the first place.