OK, I am not a lawyer, etc..

While technically Patrick Volkerding (AFAIK) owns the 'Slackware' trademark, there is this-

http://slackware.com/trademark/trademark.php

While not explicitly allowed, disributing an unaltered Slackware using the Slackware trademark seems to be allowable under these rules.

While I wouldnt have a problem myself if Patrick Volkerding did try a takedown under copyright grounds, it doesnt really seem his style from the limited amount I know about him, and it would be very bad PR.

I'm no lawyer either... but it looks like "PRIZIX INC" is selling a product, that contains some DVDs with Slackware + some PDFs, and is calling it "Slackware 14 Linux, 4-Disks DVD Installation And Reference Set".

While "PRIZIX INC" can indeed redistribute Slackware, as long as it is not altered, it cant't (according to point 3 of the mentioned Slackware Trademark Policy) use the word "Slackware" as as part of a product name.

Also, as per point 4, the circle-R is missing

1 members found this post helpful.

Trademark, not copyright!

In fact Pat may be required to take acton. IANAL but from reading lots of news stories about copyright and trademark over the years, my belief is that under US law, if you do not defend a trademark you lose the rights to it.

Pat is very generous with what he freely lets people do with his hard-work, but burning your own disks and selling it as "Slackware 14" is IMO taking the piss and I don't see how anyone could take issue with him clamping down on that.


As for the rest, Slax-Dude is correct. Clauses 3 and 4 look to be the salient ones there.

That is where it gets confusing...

Does point #3 mean that you cannot sell Slackware at all? It would pretty hard to sell slackware CDs/DVDs as 'a linux version we cannot name for legal reasons'.

When point #4 says 'approved use' does it mean point #3 again (i.e. you'd need 'written permission from Slackware Linux, Inc' to make www.slackware.linux.porn, or to make 'Slackware Tractors Inc') and/or does it refer to point #1, 'an altered version' which is 'approved'?

Edit-

Yep, I should have said trademark.

I dont know about required. I dont think that Patrick Volkerding would have to worry about losing the rights to the Slackware trademark over what could be legal (depending on your reading of the agreement Trademark Policy) and could be approved by Patrick Volkerding if illegal (we dont know if it is, approved that is ). It is just a ebay seller. Are people who own trademarks meant to know about every use of that trademark worldwide? Then sic the lawyers onto it as soon as they find out? The whole US trademark and associated IP 'hot issue' seems to almost as much about lawyers as it is about IP ownership.

But IANAL.

I wouldnt have an issue really...but can you imagine the PR? Especially as the same vendor is selling canonical ubuntu 13.04. If anyone had to worry about trademark, its ubuntu......about all its worth is the brand name.

I think basically what the document says is that in order to resell a legal copy of Slackware Linux you have to have an official product such as a vendor's distribution bulk package that was purchased from Patrick himself strictly for redistribution purposes that has all the official trademarks, legal papers, etc.

I have mixed feelings on this though my thoughts are clear. It's obviously trademark violation. I hope "PRIZIX INC" gets a good thumping for this.

OTOH, even though I do have a Slackware sub, I almost want to buy this "product". Just for the novelty....kind of like having a mis-stamped coin. Something that shouldn't exist, but does.
Give 'em hell, Patrick.

In that case, the best thing would be if the Slackware gang from LQ left a few dozen one-star-comments on the Amazon page, to make sure there will never be any buyer.

My opinion is that it's only a trademark violation if they alter it and still call it Slackware. While I'd obviously prefer that people buying media get it from the official store, I've never done anything to try to stop people from selling copies and don't plan to start now.

6 members found this post helpful.

That's class, Pat...

Thanks, Pat.

As far as I understand, you can use the Trademark provided you comply with some points.

This is a very common approach, even in other markets. For example, many tabletop roleplay games allow for the use of the trademark in derivative products if you follow the given specifications. Sometimes, this approach is favorable to the firm which does it -let's say, Dunegons & Dragons ate its competitors because every publisher could make D&D products and did not bother to publish other things.

My concern would be that people could mistake these lesser quality boxsets for the official product, but Pat's the trademark owner and if he's ok with what's going on here then so be it. I doubt these PRIZIX folk have much of a turnover anyway, so it's probably not significant.

I was surprised when that advert turned up, because I usually get "Mature Dating" ads when not logged in.