DeeJay
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f8240/f824060635fc40d5c1b7273c9df41bd440ae21f5" alt="Offline"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1187/e11879f9cd47d4ab5eda24b838fbfb8f95963d90" alt=""
Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: April 2005 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bbd30/bbd308ca2f7791076b47c87d3e2a92f42be11b04" alt="" |
Posted: Aug. 23 2005,10:24 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bc992/bc992727d02d4852c37d560432ba48cb3bba8ce2" alt="QUOTE" |
This seems like Old News to me. Eight years old, almost to the day. See - http://www2.linuxjournal.com/article/2559
The terms for use of Linux as a trademark (as distinct from simply using it in writing, so I'm in the clear... ) can be found at - http://www.linuxmark.org/
If they haven't already, perhaps Robert and John and others in the 'core' DSL team should consider whether to formally acknowledge the ownership of the Linux name, as documented at - http://www.linuxmark.org/attribution.html . Doing that is free, and would demonstrate 'Good Faith' (not that anyone with any linux/oss knowledge would have any grain of doubt.)
|