Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Its worth asking why the Linux Gazette crew didn seek to > protect that name?

0
10 Posted

Its worth asking why the Linux Gazette crew didn seek to > protect that name?

0

Names can be reserved against some certain sorts of commercial use within one’s industry segment, through use of trademark law. Please hold that thought, which I’ll return to in a moment (and remember that I said commercial use).> Copyright on the material that appeared in the Gazette during its > time under the SSC umbrella is, presumably, accounted for by the terms > of the agreement between the Gazette and SSC.Copyright title remains with each item’s author, and published material is open-source licensed under the Open Publication Licence v. 1.0. This is true of all issues of recent years. A slightly different but OPL-like licence was used before that, and contents of issues #1-8 in 1995-6 were BSD-licensed.> However, the name itself might have been trademarked years ago, > making this current dispute moot.There are more misconceptions in the Linux community over trademark law than pretty much any other legal concept, in my experience. (I’m not saying you personally are necessarily

0

Names can be reserved against some certain sorts of commercial use within one’s industry segment, through use of trademark law. Please hold that thought, which I’ll return to in a moment (and remember that I said commercial use). > Copyright on the material that appeared in the Gazette during its > time under the SSC umbrella is, presumably, accounted for by the terms > of the agreement between the Gazette and SSC. Copyright title remains with each item’s author, and published material is open-source licensed under the Open Publication Licence v. 1.0. This is true of all issues of recent years. A slightly different but OPL-like licence was used before that, and contents of issues #1-8 in 1995-6 were BSD-licensed. > However, the name itself might have been trademarked years ago, > making this current dispute moot. There are more misconceptions in the Linux community over trademark law than pretty much any other legal concept, in my experience. (I’m not saying you personally are necessar

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.