News from the embedded world

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,411
Website
Visit site
The US Patent and Trademark Office lists Linus's patent on Linux as "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation". That seems to me like a pretty definitive definition of "Linux". Even Kernel.org makes a distinction between "the Linux Kernel" and a "complete Linux system".
 "Even Kernel.org"? That's hardly a neutral source in this debate. That's like saying "Even the FSF says we should call the complete system GNU/Linux".
Ignoring the more legally binding evidence I provided doesn't make it go away. The Patent that Linus Torvalds himself owns defines it as an Operating System.

-God Ginrai
 

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
The US Patent and Trademark Office lists Linus's patent on Linux as "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation". That seems to me like a pretty definitive definition of "Linux". Even Kernel.org makes a distinction between "the Linux Kernel" and a "complete Linux system".
 
"Even Kernel.org"? That's hardly a neutral source in this debate. That's like saying "Even the FSF says we should call the complete system GNU/Linux".
Ignoring the more legally binding evidence I provided doesn't make it go away. The Patent that Linus Torvalds himself owns defines it as an Operating System.

-God Ginrai
I assume you mean his trademark? (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:46gia1.3.17)

What does that prove? You could just as well claim that Linux is a kind of "laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use[; all purpose cleaning preparations for home use; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap for personal use; perfume; essential oils for personal use; preparations for personal hygiene and cosmetic purposes, namely, hair shampoo, skin toners, shower gel, skin lotions; hair tonic and toothpaste]" according to the US Patent and Trademark Office (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kk39u0.2.16).
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,411
Website
Visit site
The US Patent and Trademark Office lists Linus's patent on Linux as "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation". That seems to me like a pretty definitive definition of "Linux". Even Kernel.org makes a distinction between "the Linux Kernel" and a "complete Linux system".
 "Even Kernel.org"? That's hardly a neutral source in this debate. That's like saying "Even the FSF says we should call the complete system GNU/Linux".
Ignoring the more legally binding evidence I provided doesn't make it go away. The Patent that Linus Torvalds himself owns defines it as an Operating System.

-God Ginrai
 I assume you mean his trademark? (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:46gia1.3.17)

What does that prove? You could just as well claim that Linux is a kind of "laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use[; all purpose cleaning preparations for home use; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap for personal use; perfume; essential oils for personal use; preparations for personal hygiene and cosmetic purposes, namely, hair shampoo, skin toners, shower gel, skin lotions; hair tonic and toothpaste]" according to the US Patent and Trademark Office (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kk39u0.2.16).
Yes, I did mean his trademark, whoops.

Your leap in logic makes no sense. The Laundry Detergent trademark isn't owned by Linus Torvalds. The OS trademark is.

-God Ginrai
 

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
The US Patent and Trademark Office lists Linus's patent on Linux as "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation". That seems to me like a pretty definitive definition of "Linux". Even Kernel.org makes a distinction between "the Linux Kernel" and a "complete Linux system".
 
"Even Kernel.org"? That's hardly a neutral source in this debate. That's like saying "Even the FSF says we should call the complete system GNU/Linux".
Ignoring the more legally binding evidence I provided doesn't make it go away. The Patent that Linus Torvalds himself owns defines it as an Operating System.

-God Ginrai
 
I assume you mean his trademark? (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:46gia1.3.17)


What does that prove? You could just as well claim that Linux is a kind of "laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use[; all purpose cleaning preparations for home use; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap for personal use; perfume; essential oils for personal use; preparations for personal hygiene and cosmetic purposes, namely, hair shampoo, skin toners, shower gel, skin lotions; hair tonic and toothpaste]" according to the US Patent and Trademark Office (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kk39u0.2.16).
Yes, I did mean his trademark, whoops.


Your leap in logic makes no sense. The Laundry Detergent trademark isn't owned by Linus Torvalds. The OS trademark is.

-God Ginrai
I don't see why a trademark would be relevant in this discussion. Sure, Linus Torvalds likes to confuse "kernel" and "OS" and likes to call the whole OS "Linux". Richard Stallman likes to call it "GNU/Linux". Would his opinion carry more weight if he would register a trademark for that name?

What exactly does registering a trademark prove?
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
11,375
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
Well, theoretically if the world's trademark offices understood computer OSes properly, that they allowed the trademark would carry some weight. But since they don't appear to, I'd say the fact they did is moot.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,411
Website
Visit site
I don't see why a trademark would be relevant in this discussion. Sure, Linus Torvalds likes to confuse "kernel" and "OS" and likes to call the whole OS "Linux". Richard Stallman likes to call it "GNU/Linux". Would his opinion carry more weight if he would register a trademark for that name?

What exactly does registering a trademark prove?
I was supplying the trademark as proof of Linus' word on the matter. The creator has the right to define it as he pleases. If Linus says it's an OS, then it's an OS.

EDIT:

@Levi: That text is defined by the person applying for the trademark, not the Trademark office.

-God Ginrai
 
Last edited by a moderator:

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I don't see why a trademark would be relevant in this discussion. Sure, Linus Torvalds likes to confuse "kernel" and "OS" and likes to call the whole OS "Linux". Richard Stallman likes to call it "GNU/Linux". Would his opinion carry more weight if he would register a trademark for that name?


What exactly does registering a trademark prove?
I was supplying the trademark as proof of Linus' word on the matter. The creator has the right to define it as he pleases. If Linus says it's an OS, then it's an OS.


EDIT:

@Levi: That text is defined by the person applying for the trademark, not the Trademark office.

-God Ginrai
I can claim that Pandora Microbes is an OS, does that make it an OS then?
 

Exophase

Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
10,308
Age
36
Location
Cleveland OH
I can claim that Pandora Microbes is an OS, does that make it an OS then?
Torvalds isn't calling the kernel the OS, he's calling the OS Linux. He's also specifically not calling the kernel Linux but the Linux kernel. You don't have a problem with him improperly calling a kernel an OS, you have a problem with him using a name for the OS that doesn't include GNU in it. And it occurs to me now that the only people calling the kernel Linux are the ones who don't like the OS being called that, which kind of obfuscates the issue. OS kernels usually don't get specific names.

The analog wouldn't be you calling Pandora Microbes an OS, but packaging a new OS that pulled in a bunch of work from other people, and calling it Microbes OS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I can claim that Pandora Microbes is an OS, does that make it an OS then?
Torvalds isn't calling the kernel the OS, he's calling the OS Linux. He's also specifically not calling the kernel Linux but the Linux kernel. You don't have a problem with him improperly calling a kernel an OS, you have a problem with him using a name for the OS that doesn't include GNU in it. And it occurs to me now that the only people calling the kernel Linux are the ones who don't like the OS being called that, which kind of obfuscates the issue. OS kernels usually don't get specific names.


The analog wouldn't be you calling Pandora Microbes an OS, but packaging a new OS that pulled in a bunch of work from other people, and calling it Microbes OS.
I was just giving a counter-argument to "The creator has the right to define it as he pleases. If Linus says it's an OS, then it's an OS."

Like I said, I call the kernel "the Linux kernel" (and I don't mean "the kernel of Linux" but "the kernel called Linux" with that), the OS "GNU/Linux", and I say "Linux" when both would be appropriate so the distinction is not important. And I don't really mind if people want to call the OS "Linux", as long as they don't complain about me calling it "GNU/Linux".
 

Letalis Sonus

Advanced Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,286
It's not "Linus' trademark", he didn't have anything to do with its registration. It was some random company who registered it, Linus only owns it due to some lawsuit - people think that whole action wasn't a malicious act, he would have got the rights anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ZetaNeta

Still Fresh
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
173
The US Patent and Trademark Office lists Linus's patent on Linux as "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation". That seems to me like a pretty definitive definition of "Linux". Even Kernel.org makes a distinction between "the Linux Kernel" and a "complete Linux system".
 
"Even Kernel.org"? That's hardly a neutral source in this debate. That's like saying "Even the FSF says we should call the complete system GNU/Linux".
Ignoring the more legally binding evidence I provided doesn't make it go away. The Patent that Linus Torvalds himself owns defines it as an Operating System.

-God Ginrai
 
I assume you mean his trademark? (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:46gia1.3.17)


What does that prove? You could just as well claim that Linux is a kind of "laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use[; all purpose cleaning preparations for home use; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap for personal use; perfume; essential oils for personal use; preparations for personal hygiene and cosmetic purposes, namely, hair shampoo, skin toners, shower gel, skin lotions; hair tonic and toothpaste]" according to the US Patent and Trademark Office (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:kk39u0.2.16).
Yes, I did mean his trademark, whoops.


Your leap in logic makes no sense. The Laundry Detergent trademark isn't owned by Linus Torvalds. The OS trademark is.

-God Ginrai
I don't see why a trademark would be relevant in this discussion. Sure, Linus Torvalds likes to confuse "kernel" and "OS" and likes to call the whole OS "Linux". Richard Stallman likes to call it "GNU/Linux". Would his opinion carry more weight if he would register a trademark for that name?

What exactly does registering a trademark prove?
Linus is the b*stard who didnt put that tiny line saying: "GPLv2-and-later". There are alot of people (incl. me) who wanna say a couple of nice words about this to him. (And some may give a bonus of broken nose)


Linus didnt want anti-tivoization to get into GPLv3. While this thing closes a huge hole in the licence.


Linus changes distros just because of the main DE.


Linus loves to spend hours defending his god-given right to offend maintainers.


Linus doesnt even wanna see anything running his own kernel now, and buys ready-made NAS and Chromebooks.


Linus got a normal life, with wife and childrens. This proves he cant do genius things anymore.


As the list of linus achivements in pouring bullsh*t is too long, il just list whom he did it to:


OpenSUSE, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Mach, C++, Nvidia, All his maintainers, atleast 10 times each, interview-man, SlashDot users, All security experts, CUPS developers, Richard Stallman, Emacs, GPL3, Linux, HDDs, BugReporters on github, All other BugReporters, GNOME, Solaris users, Solaris developers, Solaris, SCO, Color Diff in git (That one made me ROFL), GitHub, MS, Windows, B.Gates, Subversion, CVS, Anyone who dislike Tux, Andrew Tanenbaum (obviously), Hurd, ACPI, EFI, Intel,  GCC, Most hardware manufacturers, PowerPC.


Thats all i remember.


I dont see Linus as a source of any useful information but new versions of Linux, funny quotes, and his wish to kill me for my coding style. (Even though i am not involved in Linux development)




(I am you Linus, and you are my dirty maintainer)
 

Exophase

Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
10,308
Age
36
Location
Cleveland OH
Wow, you're pretty passionately opposed to Linus Torvalds ZetaNeta. I'm not a huge fan of how he treats people (he's personally flung insults at me over stupid arguments where he was the one who didn't actually know what he was talking about) but I at least greatly respect his work, including his ability to keep such an expansive development in line for such a long time.

I don't really remember anything about why he doesn't like GPLv3 (and I don't especially care), but on your other points:

- Lots of people changed away from Ubuntu because of Unity, I'm one of them; consider that they didn't actually offer MATE when it was first being forked

- ChromeOS does in fact use his kernel

- Only a deranged person would think that you can't. Einstein was married and had children long before his major contributions to physics ended.

- I kind of doubt any of his opponents want to break his nose

And regarding your list of people he's offended or gotten into heated arguments with, it's not like they're all especially conflict averse themselves. Stallman particularly comes to mind, and Tanenbaum was being kind of a douchebag in his early debates. I hope that "obviously" doesn't mean you think Linux ripped off Minix in some way.
 

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I have a huge amount of respect for both Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. They're both geniuses. They're both Great Hackers who are several orders of magnitude more talented and skilled than myself.

They both have character flaws and tend to express their opinions in controversial ways. Their political views are probably at two extreme positions in the landscape of political views held by hackers -- which covers only a relatively small area of the total political landscape, so at a distance, they don't differ that much. When they differ, I tend to agree with RMS' position more often.

When I discuss the subtleties of copyleft software licensing, it does not involve throwing insults and breaking noses.
 

God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,411
Website
Visit site
I was just giving a counter-argument to "The creator has the right to define it as he pleases. If Linus says it's an OS, then it's an OS."
 I still call the Hitchhiker's Guide series a trilogy. Plus, like Exophase said: Linus is calling it Linux when referring to the OS.

Like I said, I call the kernel "the Linux kernel" (and I don't mean "the kernel of Linux" but "the kernel called Linux" with that), the OS "GNU/Linux", and I say "Linux" when both would be appropriate so the distinction is not important. And I don't really mind if people want to call the OS "Linux", as long as they don't complain about me calling it "GNU/Linux".
 I don't mind either. I only mind when someone tries to force others to call it something, especially when they are trying to force people to call it something that is not the name the creator gave it.

-God Ginrai
 

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,387
Age
38
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I was just giving a counter-argument to "The creator has the right to define it as he pleases. If Linus says it's an OS, then it's an OS."
 
I still call the Hitchhiker's Guide series a trilogy. Plus, like Exophase said: Linus is calling it Linux when referring to the OS.

Like I said, I call the kernel "the Linux kernel" (and I don't mean "the kernel of Linux" but "the kernel called Linux" with that), the OS "GNU/Linux", and I say "Linux" when both would be appropriate so the distinction is not important. And I don't really mind if people want to call the OS "Linux", as long as they don't complain about me calling it "GNU/Linux".
 
I don't mind either. I only mind when someone tries to force others to call it something, especially when they are trying to force people to call it something that is not the name the creator gave it.

-God Ginrai
Linus is not the creator of the whole OS. There is obviously no single creator of the whole OS (even the kernel alone has a huge list of authors). The closest thing to a "creator" would be RMS, since he's the one who got the ball rolling to start the creation of a Unix-like FOSS OS, and who single-handedly contributed a lot to that before Linus even heard about Unix for the first time.
 

ZetaNeta

Still Fresh
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
173
Wow, you're pretty passionately opposed to Linus Torvalds ZetaNeta. I'm not a huge fan of how he treats people (he's personally flung insults at me over stupid arguments where he was the one who didn't actually know what he was talking about) but I at least greatly respect his work, including his ability to keep such an expansive development in line for such a long time.

I don't really remember anything about why he doesn't like GPLv3 (and I don't especially care), but on your other points:

- Lots of people changed away from Ubuntu because of Unity, I'm one of them; consider that they didn't actually offer MATE when it was first being forked

- ChromeOS does in fact use his kernel

- Only a deranged person would think that you can't. Einstein was married and had children long before his major contributions to physics ended.

- I kind of doubt any of his opponents want to break his nose

And regarding your list of people he's offended or gotten into heated arguments with, it's not like they're all especially conflict averse themselves. Stallman particularly comes to mind, and Tanenbaum was being kind of a douchebag in his early debates. I hope that "obviously" doesn't mean you think Linux ripped off Minix in some way.
I dont say that Linus is bad. I am the same (well, bit less than him anyway) old bstard. I am just saying, that taking him serious, may be bad for you brains.
- Anyone who uses something with a DE pre-installed, isnt grown up enough for Linux. But when Linus does it.....

- As i heard, ChromeOS had its own "super duper google engineered" kernel.

And again, we dont wanna the flamewar of "What is GNU/Linux" here.

You get the idea (i hope).

- Not the case today. When you get a wife, you no longer can live in a cable-jungles, jumping from a armchair to another to plug the cable to that Pentium up there on the top of bookcase.

You can no longer have sleepless nights of coding. You no longer can do it all day neither. You cant dedicate you self to assembling homemade CPUs...

You no longer can bring old hardware into house. You cant have a hill of junk on you main table, while putting you laptop on one of the open drawers.

- For the "-and-later" line.... Atleast i want. I can ask the guys on IRC if they want to join me :3

No. I just stated that its obvious that Linus argued with him.

I have a huge amount of respect for both Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. They're both geniuses. They're both Great Hackers who are several orders of magnitude more talented and skilled than myself.

They both have character flaws and tend to express their opinions in controversial ways. Their political views are probably at two extreme positions in the landscape of political views held by hackers -- which covers only a relatively small area of the total political landscape, so at a distance, they don't differ that much. When they differ, I tend to agree with RMS' position more often.

When I discuss the subtleties of copyleft software licensing, it does not involve throwing insults and breaking noses.
Any topic can involve throwing insults and breaking noses. Thats what throwing insults and breaking noses is all about.
 
Top