It seems that the Linux Foundation has decided that both “systemd” and “segmentation fault” (lol?) are trademarked by them.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have rather serious doubts that this is legit. More likely some joker pretending to be from the Linux Foundation sent Redbubble a takedown request.

  • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The complaint is not about the terms “systemd” and “segmentation fault.” Those are the titles of the affected artworks. Presumably the artworks themselves contain some trademarked property.

    Also, this is utterly unrelated to patents.

    • Kazumara@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      FSCK Systemd

      Segmentation Fault

      The content isn’t anything to write home about. I don’t really get it.

      • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for finding these. I couldn’t see them, so I assumed they were removed in response to the complaint.

        You’re right, there doesn’t appear to be anything here to object to.

    • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can understand Systemd being trademarked, but does the Linux Foundation own the trademark for Systemd…? Surely not. I’d think Red Hat before I thought Linux Foundation.

  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Patent troll” and “required actions to preserve trademarks” are two totally different things. The former is objectively bad in all ways. The second is explainable if there truly is a trademark and said gear infringes on the trademark and may be excusable if the Linux Foundation is forced to act to preserve their branding (trademark law is weird). It’s even more explainable if this is a shitty auto filter some paralegal had to build without any technical review because IP law firms are hot fucking mess. I’m also very curious to see the original graphics which I couldn’t find on Mastodon. If they are completely unrelated and there was an explicit action by someone who knew better, the explanation provides no excuse.

    Attacking any company because the trademark process is stupid doesn’t accomplish much more than attacking someone paying taxes for participating in capitalism.

    • rhabarba@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does the Linux Foundation even have a trademark process for “segmentation fault”? According to the poster on Mastodon, these words were the whole design.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like champagne only comes from the champagne region of France, true segmentation fault only comes from a linux program shitting itself.

        • bluGill@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Linux is the imposter here. Segmentation fault refers to how the PDP-(I forget) hardware organized memory. It comes from the original unix implementation which linux has never had any part of.

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They aren’t satinf they have a trademark on the phrase ‘ segmentation fault’. They are saying the artwork called ‘segmentation fault’ contains a trademarked image/logo/whatever

          • deur@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            x86 and x86_64 still have segment registers so it’s not exactly entirely archaic, but they’re not really relevant so that doesnt change what you said. I dont have the exact details on who implemented segmentation first, so I cant elaborate on that.

          • squiblet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t matter because trademark law is about usage and active protection of rights, not origination.

            • bluGill@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It does matter because projects like *BSD can prove continuous usage of the term. As such either the trademark is easy to break (it is common use), or it can only be a trademark in very specific contexts that are unlikely to apply.

              • squiblet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, what I was saying is that whether someone else created it in the 70s isn’t significant for trademark law. If multiple entities have been using it since then without claiming exclusivity would be significant.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doing a search on the USPTO shows no mark for that combination of words. Did the poster share the design? Because either there’s more to the story on their side or there’s more to the Linux Foundation side. For example, an overworked paralegal with no concept of what terms to include. Alternatively, someone being an asshole with a SLAPP suit. We need more information.

      • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can look trademarks up. They don’t.

        There is more to the story, even if it’s just some overzealous bot or contracted company.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My comment contains “if” because, speaking from professional expertise, there is a good possibility this is happening because of either a legal agreement I don’t have insight into so I can’t comment on or because of incompetence. It could also be happening from malice which, imo, is the kind of SLAPP bullshit Nintendo is deservedly attacked for. I’m not trying fanboy anything here; I’m just saying we need more information for pitchforks. The Linux Foundation has my implicit assumption of positive intent (unlike, say, Nintendo), so I’m willing to wait and see what happened here before I start attacking The Linux Foundation for something we have a screenshot from Mastodon on.

        If you believe my professional opinion is wrong, I would love to learn more about why.

  • Sorchist@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    this has nothing even remotely to do with patents, fam

    but it is indeed bullshit.

    the purpose of a “trademark” is to prevent the public from being deceived about what they’re purchasing, so you can’t sell “Big Macs” on your own because the public might be deceived into thinking they were purchasing a product from McDonalds, which (I assume) has trademarked the use of “Big Mac” for fast food.

    I HIGHLY doubt the Linux Foundation owns the trademark for “Segmentation Fault” with respect to random merch, so… yeah 100% bullshit

    (The image does also say “Linux IP” in addition to “Linux Trademark” and I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean, since “IP” covers a multitude of dissimilar things, maybe it’s just a vague handwavy assertion they make in order to make a takedown without particularly justifying it?)

    • ridago@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny you should use Big Mac as an example, since McDonalds actually lost that trademark in Europe due to some legal dispute with a pub in Ireland or something

  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m interested to hear your novel theories about how trademarks and patents are related

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Are we certain this complaint was lodged by the Linux Foundation? Frequently DMCA takedowns happen because someone who is not the original rights holder made the complaint. Even when there’s no actual rights being violated. Essentially people taking advantage of automated systems or just people not wanting to deal with possible legal issues, trolling of a different sort.

  • Drito@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Linux” is owned by Linus Torvalds. Can he ask this foundation to change its name ?

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but some funding for Linux (some of which goes directly to Torvalds) comes from the Linux Foundation, so why would he?

  • gabriele97@lemmy.g97.top
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, good for them that are happy with the segmentation fault (?) Every time I see it I start screaming

  • Janis@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    again and again: systemd is wrong. lennart poettering and redhat broke the dogma. if you use systemd you should have edge as your main browser.

    • manpacket@lemmyrs.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      systemd had problems when it was first introduced, but it works much better now and it’s not going away. I would suggest to revisit it again.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      False equivalence. Edge isn’t FOSS. Systemd is.

      Any forks of systemd will have to be renamed to something obviously different from plain “systemd”, but forks already work that way. We are not, for example, using “XFree86” even though the current X Window System is derived from XFree86 code.

      Nor must the program files (shell commands, etc) be renamed. OpenSSH still uses the program file name ssh for compatibility, despite “SSH” being a trademark belonging to someone else.

      The only dogma systemd has broken is that booting has to be slow, complicated, and unreliable. Good riddance.

      • rhabarba@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only dogma systemd has broken is that booting has to be slow, complicated, and unreliable.

        This was a solved problem before systemd was a thing. And, even if we assumed that Upstart (2006), OpenRC (2007) and others wouldn’t have existed in 2010: How often do you need to reboot your system before the intrusiveness of systemd is worth it?

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In Upstart’s readiness protocol, daemons are expected to SIGSTOP themselves to signal readiness to the process supervisor. This design is extremely questionable, to put it politely.

          OpenRC still relies on System V shell scripts, and therefore is not an improvement.

          “[T]he intrusiveness of systemd” means nothing to me. I care about what it can do and how well, not whether it’s liked by change-fearing graybeards.

          The number of reboots required before the effort to learn systemd becomes worth it is approximately 1. Shell-script-based shutdowns frequently hang, and when they don’t, they take 30+ seconds to shut the system down. Systemd can shut the system down in 5 to 10 seconds. Hallelujah and good riddance to what was one of my least favorite parts of the Linux experience.