Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!noc.near.net!public.x.org!kaleb From: kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: What is "BSD"? Date: 23 Aug 95 11:28:03 GMT Organization: X Consortium Inc. Lines: 66 Message-ID: <kaleb.809177283@exalt> References: <CGD.95Aug20032937@BALVENIE.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: exalt.x.org X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 cgd@cs.cmu.edu writes: > BSDI is the owner of the trademark "BSD" which is used > in the field of computer software. >According to BSDI, _NONE_ of the following can be called "BSD Systems": > Ultrix 386BSD > FreeBSD NetBSD > Lites SunOS [34].x >even though some of them have been considered "BSD Systems" before BSDI >was formed. I suggest that FreeBSD/NetBSD, et al get themselves to a trademark lawyer and don't make any agreements with BSDI until you do. BSDI's claim to the trademark might be invalid or very tenuous. It's not uncommon for someone with a weak claim to go off and try to negotiate agreements first, and then let the various parties discover later that the holder's claim wasn't very good to begin with. >Indeed, systems like NetBSD or FreeBSD would find it >difficult (if not impossible) to register their names as trademarks, >without an agreement with BSDI like the ones that the FreeBSD folks >signed. >As far as I know, BSDi's been very quiet about their ownership of the >BSD trademark (probably for good reason). But they own it, and are >asserting their "right" to exclusive use of it. If you don't believe >me, call them up and ask them if they claim ownership of the "BSD" >name, if they've entered into such an agreement with the FreeBSD >folks, etc. All ownership of the trademark assures, in this case, is that someone else cannot come along later and start using BSD as their product name. Parties that were using a trademarked name before the trademark was granted are permitted under trademark law to continue using the name; normally this has a regional limitation of some sort, but this is the Internet and the law hasn't quite caught up with the Internet yet. We're talking about U.S. law here, your milage may vary in other countries. By making an agreement too quickly, FreeBSD might merely reinforce the notion that BSDI has a valid claim to the BSD trademark. Perhaps they do, but that doesn't mean you should roll over, play dead, and sign everthing BSDI puts in front of you. Make them prove they have a valid claim before signing any agreements with them. Once the cat is out of the bag it gets harder to put it back in. And then, just to take the other side of the coin for a moment, who are the principles of BSDI? If it's McKusick et al, then who, if anybody, is more deserving of ownership of the BSD name? There is something to be said for good will, even if you can't put a dollar value on it. If BSDI does have a legitimate claim to BSD, it seems to me like they generate quite a bit of good will if they let FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD continue to use BSD in their name. If FreeBSD/NetBSD/386BSD sign the agreement, they generate some reciprocal good will with BSDI. >Some of you may note that there's more than just a little bit of >irony in this... Ironic? Not really. Sounds like business-as-usual to me. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY