Story: 'Linux' trademark doesn't matter, says Stallman

Posted by: Scotty D (Sunday 28 August 2005, 3:20 PM)

RMS isn't the one who's confused here, folks, and he's not being hypocritical either - he's being absolutely consistent, as always. Stallman is an evangelist, and his message never wavers from the gospel he's preaching, which is that of software freedom.

What he's saying is that we shouldn't be distracted by the trademark issue because that only covers use of the brand name, not use of the software. He's saying that enforcing a trademark by requiring a paid license for the use of the mark is not inconsistent with the GPL or the spirit of software freedom. He's reminding people for the millionth time that free software is about freedom, not price. The Free Software Foundation promotes freedom to use software, not freedom to use brand names.

Of course, Richard would like a little recognition for all the pioneering work he's done starting way back in the '70's, decades before there was a "FOSS movement", to provide and promote free software, so he prefers the term "GNU/Linux" over just Linux (or just GNU -- from the article: "I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit."). The observant will note that Richard's preferred nomenclature would still require the Linux trademark license if used in a brand name (and possibly a license from the FSF as well, I'm not familiar with their trademark policy).

Even the author of this article seems confused on the issue, as are several of those who have commented so far. This is common, which explains why RMS feels the need to emphasize the freedom aspect when software licensing issues are the topic of discussion.