[chat] Re: NZ Company resuses to duplicate Knoppix CDs

["Marcel Kunath" <kunathma@xxxxxxx>]

Jon Biddell writes: 

> The following story is of interest to all Linux affecionados... 
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3510183 
>
> More Microsoft anti-competitive practices in the making... 
>
> Jon

I read the story yesterday. I don't see anything wrong with it. 

So there is a non-compete clause. The clause probably is there because they 
may be sole producer for Microsoft software CDs in New Zealand. The question 
I ask myself is: If I am a major software manufacturer and I give sole 
rights of production to a company then maybe I want this company in exchange 
to give up the right to produce competing products. Moral? I don't know. 
Fact is that is probably the situation and it makes sense from the business 
point of view. 

Overlooking all of the Microsoft issue let's just say this. People in the 
Linux world think they can copy as they like. And as defence they always 
bring out the GPL. The GPL says nothing about CD duplication. The GPL talks 
about code access, reuse and modification. People always forget that on a 
product there is more than just code. There is trademarks (logos, names and 
expressions). A duplication of a product not only duplicates GPL code but 
also protected trademarks. This issue is widely overlooked and I wish it was 
cleared up. The amount of trademark violations in the Linux/GPL/open-source 
area is enormous. I am just waiting for the day where somebody applies for 
deletion of "Red Hat" from the trademark register simply because everybody 
uses it as generic term. 

I would enjoy a discussion how the following product is in any way legal: 

http://www.lsl.com.au/reference/dual-linux-may03-note.php 

1. It's a duplication of GPL code including trademarks.
2. It creates a new product based on two commercial products (probably 
without permission of the original owners)
3. It puts the two original products in direct competition (This makes the 
Microsoft non-complete clause seem reasonable to avoid such acts.) which the 
original owners may not have intended or given permission to. 

But at least some companies are realizing this problem. The newcomers do not 
do iso images (Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros). SuSE recognized the problem years 
ago and put some weird yast limitation in place. Yellow Dog is trying to 
protect it trademarks 
(http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/resources/ftp_mirrors.shtml). Red Hat put a 
trademark policy in place but doesn't enforce it (which is a violation of 
trademark law in itself and deserves the cancellation of their trademarks). 

To sum this up I can only agree with a duplication company asking questions 
when they duplicate images. It is their business to ask the customer: Do you 
own the rights to duplicate this image? Last I know all the Linux companies 
selling duped CDs on the web never asked for the right to duplicate products 
(trademarks contained within them). 

Which has a greater legal power? GPL or trademark law? More lawsuits to 
come.... 

Marcel