It seems that the Linux Foundation has decided that both “systemd” and “segmentation fault” (lol?) are trademarked by them.

  • rhabarba@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why does the Linux Foundation even have a trademark process for “segmentation fault”? According to the poster on Mastodon, these words were the whole design.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      97
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like champagne only comes from the champagne region of France, true segmentation fault only comes from a linux program shitting itself.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Linux is the imposter here. Segmentation fault refers to how the PDP-(I forget) hardware organized memory. It comes from the original unix implementation which linux has never had any part of.

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They aren’t satinf they have a trademark on the phrase ‘ segmentation fault’. They are saying the artwork called ‘segmentation fault’ contains a trademarked image/logo/whatever

        • deur@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          x86 and x86_64 still have segment registers so it’s not exactly entirely archaic, but they’re not really relevant so that doesnt change what you said. I dont have the exact details on who implemented segmentation first, so I cant elaborate on that.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t matter because trademark law is about usage and active protection of rights, not origination.

          • bluGill@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            It does matter because projects like *BSD can prove continuous usage of the term. As such either the trademark is easy to break (it is common use), or it can only be a trademark in very specific contexts that are unlikely to apply.

            • squiblet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, what I was saying is that whether someone else created it in the 70s isn’t significant for trademark law. If multiple entities have been using it since then without claiming exclusivity would be significant.

      • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You mean Tux? That’s under a custom attribution license, with no noncommercial clause

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doing a search on the USPTO shows no mark for that combination of words. Did the poster share the design? Because either there’s more to the story on their side or there’s more to the Linux Foundation side. For example, an overworked paralegal with no concept of what terms to include. Alternatively, someone being an asshole with a SLAPP suit. We need more information.

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can look trademarks up. They don’t.

      There is more to the story, even if it’s just some overzealous bot or contracted company.