How does it affect user groups Re: [SGVLUG] Linux Trade mark ...

[David Lawyer]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Alex Roston wrote:
> Emerson, Tom wrote:
> 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Behalf Of Dustin
> >>
> >>Anyway, it is my uninformed opinion that there is *no chance* 
> >>that anyone
> >>is ever going to bother us (except for one easily fixable minor detail
> >>which I mention somewhere below), 
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >[and "below"}
> >
> > 
> >
> >>Note that this implies that they aren't even interested in what we do
> >>unless we use Linux as part of a trademark or without proper 
> >>attributions.
> >>We aren't doing the first.  We may actually be using it without proper
> >>attribution, though, and I *can* imagine a polite letter asking us to
> >>attribute it.  We should probably do this anyway without being asked,
> >>because (IIRC) acknowledging their ownership of the mark 
> >>strengthens their claim and makes it easier (read: less costly in the 
> >>long run) to defend it.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >Since this came up on the eve of rolling in a new website, it WAS on my 
> >mind to add a couple of lines here and there [perhaps on the "template"] 
> >to supply said attribution, but before I just off-and-do-this, I'd like 
> >some more yea/nay votes on whether it is necessary.
> >
> >(perhaps this should be the first "poll"? ;) )
> >
> > 
> >
> I'm all for the trademark attribution. It may keep us from having to pay 
> money, and thus become organized. It may also keep us from being a test 
> case.

I would oppose it on principle that attribution is a big waste of
time (including reader's time) and bandwidth.  I think the danger of a
lawsuit from LMI is less than that of being struck by lightening on
the way to a LUG meeting.

> 
> Alex
> 
			David Lawyer