Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation? - Slackware ; It has been pointed out to me that Barry Kauler is considering naming his latest version of Puppy Linux as, among others, "Slack Puppy" or "Slackpup": http://www.puppylinux.com/news4/comm...y071106-060934 It looks to me like either of those choices would lead the reader ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

  1. Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    It has been pointed out to me that Barry Kauler is considering naming his
    latest version of Puppy Linux as, among others, "Slack Puppy" or "Slackpup":

    http://www.puppylinux.com/news4/comm...y071106-060934

    It looks to me like either of those choices would lead the reader to
    believe one or both of the following are the case:

    (a) that Puppy Linux is a derivative of Slackware (something that Mr Kauler
    has strenuously denied in the past, despite the presence of PV's copyright
    notices in Puppy startup scripts),

    and/or

    (b) that Slackpup or Slack Puppy are in some way
    approved by, or associated to, Slackware itself.

    It doesn't seem likely that PV would approve of a development cycle that
    sees the release of 3.01 on Oct 15th followed by 4.0 alpha on November
    5th, but that may be prejudice on my part.

    What say you, gentle readers?

    Mark
    --
    Signature will be renamed to "Slacksig" in the next version.

  2. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On 2007-11-06, Mark South wrote:
    > It has been pointed out to me that Barry Kauler is considering naming his
    > latest version of Puppy Linux as, among others, "Slack Puppy" or "Slackpup":
    >
    > http://www.puppylinux.com/news4/comm...y071106-060934
    >
    > It looks to me like either of those choices would lead the reader to
    > believe one or both of the following are the case:
    >
    > (a) that Puppy Linux is a derivative of Slackware (something that Mr Kauler
    > has strenuously denied in the past, despite the presence of PV's copyright
    > notices in Puppy startup scripts),
    >
    > and/or
    >
    > (b) that Slackpup or Slack Puppy are in some way
    > approved by, or associated to, Slackware itself.
    >
    > It doesn't seem likely that PV would approve of a development cycle that
    > sees the release of 3.01 on Oct 15th followed by 4.0 alpha on November
    > 5th, but that may be prejudice on my part.
    >
    > What say you, gentle readers?
    >
    > Mark



    The general rule is that Pat does not usually approve of things
    named after or even close to Slackware.

    If the developer of Puppy linux does use that in his title,
    I would say its more to drive people to his site and
    not the distribution.

    However, I would be interested to see if the developer would seek approval
    from PV before going forward.

    -Matt

  3. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    Matt Hayes wrote:
    >
    > The general rule is that Pat does not usually approve of things
    > named after or even close to Slackware.


    "Slackware" is a registered trademark of Slackware Linux, Inc., according to:



    Does something like SlackPuppy infringe on that trademark? Well, a court
    would probably have to decide that.

    I can understand Pat not wanting products that are not under his control
    named after Slackware. If they release a bad product, it would reflect badly
    on his product.

    - Kurt

  4. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On 2007-11-06, Matt Hayes wrote:
    >
    > The general rule is that Pat does not usually approve of things
    > named after or even close to Slackware.


    I believe (though I could be wrong) that the Slackintosh developers did
    get permission from Pat to use the Slack name. Of course, Slackintosh
    stays very close to Slackware itself, differing mainly in PPC-specific
    areas.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  5. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:56:51 +0000, ~kurt wrote:

    > Matt Hayes wrote:
    >>
    >> The general rule is that Pat does not usually approve of things
    >> named after or even close to Slackware.


    That's what I would expect.

    > "Slackware" is a registered trademark of Slackware Linux, Inc., according to:
    >
    >


    Indeed.

    > Does something like SlackPuppy infringe on that trademark? Well, a court
    > would probably have to decide that.


    Only if it actually happens, which is why it might be good if someone who
    talks to him regularly warns PV what is on the cards *before* it happens.

    > I can understand Pat not wanting products that are not under his control
    > named after Slackware. If they release a bad product, it would reflect badly
    > on his product.


    Puppy has already been touting itself as "Slackware compatible" for a
    while now, I guess I was curious to know whether PV had a view on that.

    Thanks to Matt, Keith, and ~kurt for replies.

    Mark
    --
    Signature is copyrighted and patented.

  6. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:09:12 +0100, Mark South wrote:

    > It has been pointed out to me that Barry Kauler is considering naming his
    > latest version of Puppy Linux as, among others, "Slack Puppy" or "Slackpup":
    >
    > http://www.puppylinux.com/news4/comm...y071106-060934
    >
    > It looks to me like either of those choices would lead the reader to
    > believe one or both of the following are the case:
    >
    > (a) that Puppy Linux is a derivative of Slackware (something that Mr Kauler
    > has strenuously denied in the past, despite the presence of PV's copyright
    > notices in Puppy startup scripts),
    >
    > and/or
    >
    > (b) that Slackpup or Slack Puppy are in some way
    > approved by, or associated to, Slackware itself.
    >
    > It doesn't seem likely that PV would approve of a development cycle that
    > sees the release of 3.01 on Oct 15th followed by 4.0 alpha on November
    > 5th, but that may be prejudice on my part.
    >
    > What say you, gentle readers?
    >
    > Mark


    Just out of curiosity, what is a 'PV'?


  7. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On Nov 7, 10:33 am, ray wrote:
    [snip]
    > Just out of curiosity, what is a 'PV'?


    The creator of Slackware is a gentleman named Patrick Volkerding. Or
    "PV" for short.


  8. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?


    ray@zianet.com wrote :

    > Just out of curiosity, what is a 'PV'?


    Its not a what its a who. PV is Patrick Volkerding; Slackware founder
    and chief maintainer.
    --
    Thomas O.

    This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

  9. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2007-11-07, Mark South wrote:
    >>> The general rule is that Pat does not usually approve of things
    >>> named after or even close to Slackware.


    For the record, we didn't get permission to use the name SlackSec for
    our patches and packages way back when Pat was sick, but we *did* make
    it explicitly clear at every turn that we were a third-party group
    making third-party packages that were not in any way endorsed by Pat.
    I've always been kind of guilty feeling over that, because I knew we
    could be stepping on his toes, but we needed some name that would let
    people know exactly what we were doing, and nothing else seemed to work
    as well as "SlackSec". There really wasn't much opportunity at the
    time to get permission, so we went ahead without it. Maybe that was
    foolish, maybe it wasn't.

    Later, when SBo started, Pat did give us permission to use the name
    "SlackBuild" which he had essentially made up. This go 'round I
    wouldn't have used a name with "Slack" in it without getting his
    permission first, because at that time getting permission was actually
    possible.

    IME, if you make it explicitly clear on every turn that you are not in
    any way affiliated with Slackware, and any problems with your stuff
    should reflect back on you and not on Slackware, Pat's reasonable.
    Also, if you contact him in advance and be open with him about
    everything, you can generally reach a satisfactory compromise.

    >> Does something like SlackPuppy infringe on that trademark? Well, a court
    >> would probably have to decide that.

    >
    > Only if it actually happens, which is why it might be good if someone who
    > talks to him regularly warns PV what is on the cards *before* it happens.


    I'll send him an e-mail about this.

    - --
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHMfLyrZS6hX/gvjoRAlX2AJ9f6ytYMOzzmcuDoKSKaZOGUE6T9wCg4tt3
    S9lCPHxNNB8ineDwqQGA+bs=
    =pFcq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  10. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    I see this in the COPYRIGHT.TXT

    -------------------
    Note that you can still redistribute a distribution that doesn't meet these
    criteria, you just can't call it "Slackware". Personally, I hate
    restricting
    things in any way, but these restrictions are not designed to make life
    difficult for anyone. I just want to make sure that bugs are not added to
    commercial redistributions of Slackware. They have been in the past, and
    the resulting requests for help have flooded my mailbox! I'm just trying to
    make sure that I have some recourse when something like that happens.
    -------------------

    It seems that what PV is that people do not mistake a derivative with
    the true official Slackware. I don't with using the term "Slackpuppy"
    can introduce such confusion. It will remind people that it is
    "compatible" but that does not seems to be a problem.

    Anyway, if there is a problem, it is PV that must complains, not us. I
    cannot believe it can't be peacefully resolved though.

    Olive

  11. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:36:41 +0100, Olive wrote:

    > It seems that what PV is that people do not mistake a derivative with
    > the true official Slackware. I don't with using the term "Slackpuppy"
    > can introduce such confusion. It will remind people that it is
    > "compatible" but that does not seems to be a problem.


    The thing is that Puppy has resisted giving any credit to PV up till now,
    claiming that it was entirely written from scratch, in spite of PV's
    copyright notices in various startup scripts.

    And now, having built something that is pretty much no longer closely
    related to Slackware, they are mentioning "Slackware compatibility" and
    the possibility of using a name like Slackpup.

    Even if that's legal, it doesn't seem quite cricket.

    > Anyway, if there is a problem, it is PV that must complains, not us.
    > I cannot believe it can't be peacefully resolved though.


    Hopefully it can be resolved, but heading off the trouble seems
    worthwhile, which is why I was hoping someone would drop PV a note (I see
    Alan Hicks has said he would do that) so that he can decide if he cares.

    Cheers to all,
    Mark
    --
    Signature is copyright. By reading this signature you are violating my
    copyright, unless you destroy your brain within 30 seconds of reading.

  12. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    Mark South wrote:
    >The thing is that Puppy has resisted giving any credit to PV up till now,
    >claiming that it was entirely written from scratch, in spite of PV's
    >copyright notices in various startup scripts.
    >
    >And now, having built something that is pretty much no longer closely
    >related to Slackware, they are mentioning "Slackware compatibility" and
    >the possibility of using a name like Slackpup.
    >
    >Even if that's legal, it doesn't seem quite cricket.


    Incidentally, whether it is or not legal isn't a copyright
    issue. If PV has registered Slackware as a trademark, he
    can (almost certainly) successfully object.

    If Slackware is not a trademark, forget it.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

  13. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On Nov 7, 1:09 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > Mark South wrote:
    > >The thing is that Puppy has resisted giving any credit to PV up till now,
    > >claiming that it was entirely written from scratch, in spite of PV's
    > >copyright notices in various startup scripts.

    >
    > >And now, having built something that is pretty much no longer closely
    > >related to Slackware, they are mentioning "Slackware compatibility" and
    > >the possibility of using a name like Slackpup.

    >
    > >Even if that's legal, it doesn't seem quite cricket.

    >
    > Incidentally, whether it is or not legal isn't a copyright
    > issue. If PV has registered Slackware as a trademark, he
    > can (almost certainly) successfully object.


    "Slackware« is a registered trademark of Slackware Linux, Inc."

    >From the bottom of the http://slackware.com/ webpage


    HTH
    --
    Lew



  14. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?


    > "Slackware« is a registered trademark of Slackware Linux, Inc."


    "Slackware" not just "Slack". Do a google search on "Slack" and will
    find a lot website not related to Slackware. Moreover Slack is just a
    English words. Remember Lindows has lost his lawsuit against Microsoft
    (in the US, it has win in Europe). But I can't image this going so far...

    Olive

  15. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:29:40 +0100, Olive wrote:

    >> "Slackware® is a registered trademark of Slackware Linux, Inc."

    >
    > "Slackware" not just "Slack". Do a google search on "Slack" and will
    > find a lot website not related to Slackware. Moreover Slack is just a
    > English words. Remember Lindows has lost his lawsuit against Microsoft
    > (in the US, it has win in Europe). But I can't image this going so far...


    IANAL, but there is still scope for a trademark to be protected from uses
    of a similar trademark in the same business area when there is scope for
    consfusion. Girling, the automotive parts manufacturer, successfully
    prevented a company called Dirling from selling car parts under that name.
    So the issue is not a simple one.

    Of course, PV may not care, in which case it becomes moot.

  16. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    +Alan Hicks+ says:

    pgp trash troll delete

    >For the record, we didn't get permission to use the name SlackSec for
    >our patches and packages way back when Pat was sick, but we *did* make
    >it explicitly clear at every turn that we were a third-party group
    >making third-party packages that were not in any way endorsed by Pat.


    Bugger off, Hicks. We all know what you are about after watching
    you jockey for status during PV's illness a couple of years ago.

    You are despised in this ng as you are in most other places. There
    is no "we" or "our" where you are concerned.

    Bugger off.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  17. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    Olive wrote:
    >> "Slackware« is a registered trademark of Slackware Linux, Inc."

    >
    >"Slackware" not just "Slack". Do a google search on
    >"Slack" and will find a lot website not related to
    >Slackware. Moreover Slack is just a English
    >words. Remember Lindows has lost his lawsuit against
    >Microsoft (in the US, it has win in Europe). But I can't
    >image this going so far...


    What that effectively means is that if "Slackpuppy" is
    related to funky little dogs, they are safe. If it
    refers to software for the MAC, I wouldn't want to
    venture a guess.

    But if it refers to *anything* that relating to Linux,
    never mind a distribution that clearly uses some scripts
    from Slackware, I wouldn't think it should be called a
    "guess", though certainties only happen when the judge
    issues a ruling... ;-)

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

  18. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    Lew Pitcher wrote:

    > On Nov 7, 10:33 am, ray wrote:
    > [snip]
    >> Just out of curiosity, what is a 'PV'?

    >
    > The creator of Slackware is a gentleman named Patrick Volkerding. Or
    > "PV" for short.


    Darn, and I was going to suggest that PV was some form of
    meta-bootloader/install routine to send people off on a wild goose chase...

    It's kind of true.. :-)

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  19. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    Peter Chant (REMpeteOVE@CAPpetezilla.ITALSco.uk) writes:
    > Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >
    >> On Nov 7, 10:33 am, ray wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >>> Just out of curiosity, what is a 'PV'?

    >>
    >> The creator of Slackware is a gentleman named Patrick Volkerding. Or
    >> "PV" for short.

    >
    > Darn, and I was going to suggest that PV was some form of
    > meta-bootloader/install routine to send people off on a wild goose chase...
    >
    > It's kind of true.. :-)
    >

    The trick is now to figure out something that will land in Slackware,
    and call it "PV".

    Michael


  20. Re: Does one need permission from PV to use the Slack appelation?

    Michael Black says:
    >Peter Chant (REMpeteOVE@CAPpetezilla.ITALSco.uk) writes:
    >> Lew Pitcher wrote:


    >>> The creator of Slackware is a gentleman named Patrick
    >>> Volkerding. Or "PV" for short.


    >> Darn, and I was going to suggest that PV was some form of
    >> meta-bootloader/install routine to send people off on a wild
    >> goose chase... It's kind of true.. :-)


    >The trick is now to figure out something that will land in
    >Slackware, and call it "PV".


    It's at this point where some of the punks will break out with
    little anecdotes about "The Man" where they refer to him as "Pat" as
    if they are on a first name basis with him. We had one clown reveal
    to us once that he had received an actual email from "The Man" and
    we guess this was supposed to make us feel small and insignificant
    because we don't have such an email. This was years ago and he
    probably still has it sitting in his inbox. How small and
    insignificant do you have to be before an email from Volkerding
    becomes one of the highlights of your life?

    The worst one for this kind of "we aren't worthy" worship of "The
    Man" has traditionally been The Coward Hicks. We **** directly in
    the face of the Coward. And we do it again. And we grind it in
    with our boots.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast