tlug: Linux as Trade Mark?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Gushee <matt@example.com> writes:

    Matt> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
    >> Arrrgh.  All Linus did was to extend the GPL logic to
    >> trademarks.

    Matt> Interesting. Could you tell us more about this (unless I'm
    Matt> the only one who doesn't know)? Extending the logic is
    Matt> great, but are we also extending the legal safeguards? That
    Matt> is, if you put a program under the GPL, you can never un-GPL

Sure you can, if you == owner.  It's been done.  Ever heard of Aladdin
Ghostscript?  Much better than GNU Ghostscript.[1]  I don't see any
language in the GPL which prevents the owner from withdrawing the
license at any time.

This is one reason why the FSF wants GPL'd software assigned to them,
I suspect.  Look at the LZW/GIF mess.  Can you imagine the chaos if
the GNU C library was withdrawn from GPL?

    Matt> it. I don't find any comparable language in PHT's trademark
    Matt> statement ... 

It's unnecessary.  There is no language in the GPL which prevents the
owner from withdrawing the license AFAICT; I don't know where that
would leave derivative works redistributed prior to the withdrawal if
it happened, I suspect they would become illegal to use or
redistribute.  What the GPL does is prevents "third parties of ill
will" from using "the Program" as a springboard to better proprietary
software.  That's not a relevant point for a trademark, which is an
atomic object.

The only interesting questions (as you point out and I snipped) are
(1) does Linus actually have ownership rights (evidently he could not
apply in his own name) in Japan? and (2) under Japanese law does that
give him a veto over PHT's management actions wrt to that trademark?
The JLUG open letter implies that both are false, but does not address
either question directly.

BTW, I can't believe that the actual registration is not a matter of
public record, as implied by the demand for publication of it.

>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Gushee <matt@example.com> writes elsewhere:

    Matt> Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
    >> I can understand them being pissed about the lack of prior
    >> consultation (this is, after all, Japan), but as long as it's
    >> true that Linus owns the mark, the rest is balderdash.  What
    >> would they have said, anyway, "No, JLUG should own that mark"?

    Matt> They say it should be owned by a non-profit organization

Which, in Japan, are often stalking horses for commercial interests
that regularly get away with horrors that commercial interests would
never dare to attempt (consumer organizations arguning for higher rice
prices, for example).  Better the mark should be guarded by somebody
we know we have to watch :-/

    Matt> along the lines of Linux International (which I'd never

It's new, a year or two, and low-profile, since guarding the trademark 
is pretty much its whole brief IIRC.

    Matt> heard of before) ... and that they were discussing
    Matt> establishing just such an organization ... and that PHT was

I'm sure they were.  Didn't they bother to invite Linus to the party
when he was here to make the application?  Or did they plan to do it
themselves and "surprise" him?

    Matt> (or maybe just should have been) aware that they were doing
    Matt> so.

I don't recall any such traffic crossing tlug, so there's one
important organization that didn't get consulted.

Footnotes: 
[1]  The reason there is such a thing as GNU Ghostscript is that
Aladdin is honoring an ethical, not legal, commitment made to Stallman.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences        Tel/fax: +1 (298) 53-5091
--------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 18 September, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Meeting: 10 October, Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate 12:30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp