Lindows to keep its name..

lokem · Mar 18, 2002

Seems like a small blow to MS:

In a potentially striking blow to Microsoft's "Windows" trademark, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a preliminary ruling late Friday stating Lindows.com may continue using the Lindows name despite efforts by Microsoft to prove it is confusingly similar to its own operating system moniker.

Lindows.com called on the community in January to help rebut Redmond's claim over the term. Although the ruling only covers the preliminary injunction portion of Microsoft's suit, Coughenour openly questioned whether the word Windows can be protected under trademark law. "Lindows.com has presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of the Windows mark," he wrote.

Full article: http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1016512425

Hopefully Lindows lives up to its promises.

uncleel · Mar 19, 2002

Be afraid M$, be very very afraid!

Originally posted by lokem
Hopefully Lindows lives up to its promises.

I've mentioned Lindows™ on several occassions & wasn't to concerned about this nuisance lawsuit. What the "big boys" try to do is wear you down & deplete your resources, w/ these lawsuits w/o merit.

Lindows™ when developed, will allow M$ programs (like Office) to run on Luinx. Oh happy day!

Phantasm66 · Mar 19, 2002

Interestingly enough, MS have been ordered to produce a version of Windows "Lite" if you like, which does not include bundled IE and media player, etc....

MS predicts that this, together with the release of the source code to developers, could result in as many as 4000 different versions of Windows.

In that case, MS had pledged to STOP PRODUCING WINDOWS completely.....

SuperCheetah · Mar 19, 2002

I think Microsoft is simply scared that someone else might make a better version than Gates ever could. Just look at the success Linux has had as a open source OS. I'm sure many programmers would love to tweak Microsoft's OS to their liking and make it better and faster than it has been closed source.

It's too bad Microsoft can't keep their grubby hands off invading everything in the market to further monopolize their business.

Th3M1ghtyD8 · Mar 19, 2002

If windows ever becomes open source, we may finally be able to rid it of all of the bloat, that the lazy M$ programmers have added over the years.

Arris · Mar 19, 2002

Sounds like they have their own development team.
Don't think we'll be adding our own code anytime soon...
But then again I am not completely sure, but having a Careers page doesn't suggest its not going to be an open source product.

Mictlantecuhtli · Mar 19, 2002

I'd rather use applications made for Linux than run M$ apps in it. This cross-platform thing can't be made as solid as real Linux applications.

uncleel · Apr 13, 2002

Hybrid Windows/Linux OS Offers Preview of Future
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=75&ncid=738&e=8&u=/nf/20020412/tc_nf/17232
Jay Lyman, www.NewsFactor.com Fri Apr 12, 1:46 PM ET

the latest beta version of the Linux-meets-Windows OS includes new features for quick software installation and the ability to view and print major file formats such as Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and Excel.

uncleel · Apr 13, 2002

Lindows opens new Sneak Preview
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=73&ncid=738&e=7&u=/zd/20020412/tc_zd/5106087
By Matthew Broersma, ZDNet News Fri Apr 12, 7:43 PM ET

http://Lindows.com/ this week released a second "Sneak Preview" of its Linux based operating system, adding features for streamlining the process for installing new software and for viewing and printing non-Linux file formats.

lokem · Apr 14, 2002

I wonder how will lindows be able to compete with Mandrake and SuSe. It's good though, we'll get more choices

lokem · Apr 14, 2002

Just noticed this interesting article over at www.newsforge.com regarding Lindows:

FSF asks Lindows, "Where's the source?"
Thursday April 11, 2002 - [ 03:58 PM GMT ]
- Tina Gasperson -

http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/04/11/148251.shtml?tid=23

Bradley Kuhn, vice president of the Free Software Foundation, says the organization is contacting LindowsOS representatives because the company has not included source code with its "sneak preview" releases. Lindows CEO Michael Robertson says his company will comply with the GPL when the product is released to the public.

Kuhn says a Lindows insider tipped the FSF off to the possibility of missing source code. Lindows insiders are those who have registered and paid a $99 fee to receive beta releases of LindowsOS and other non-public information. LindowsOS is a distribution based on the Linux kernel, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License. The GPL states, in part, that the program instructions in their original form as written by the programmer (source code) must be available to users of the program. The GPL also requires that users be allowed to copy, modify and redistribute the program freely, but they must in turn provide the source code.

Hope this doesn't turn out into an ugly one...

Here's some more:

Commentary: Open letter to Michael Robertson from Bruce Perens
Saturday April 13, 2002 - [ 02:27 PM GMT ]

http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/04/13/1331214.shtml?tid=19

Dear Michael Robertson,

I don't think we've met, but you and I are partners. I'm one of the authors of the "Lindows" system."

First, I'd like to thank you for what Lindows.com has done to support Free Software: helping with the Debian and WINE conferences, contributing to the KDE League, and code contributions to WINE and through MP3.com.

I'm delighted to see you investing in a Linux-based desktop, and wish you all possible success in promoting it. Certainly you are welcome to sell copies of my software, and you don't have to pay me for the privilege. Modify it, use it for any purpose, all of that's fine.

But Michael, please remember that we are partners. For all that you've done for the Free Software community, we've done at least as much for you. And our partnership has rules that we are both honor-bound to follow. In the case of my work on Lindows, those rules are the terms of the GPL. You accepted those terms, and became my partner, when you chose to incorporate my software into your product and distribute it to others.

There is a pragmatic reason that I ask you to fulfill your source-code obligation any time you distribute a copy of my work from one legal entity to another: Sadly, some companies never make it to release 1.0. In that case, the pre-release versions provide the only opportunity for a company to fulfill its source-code obligation. Another reason is that if we're lax in enforcing our terms with you, other companies will think they can violate those terms with impunity.

In addition to pragmatic reasons, there's principle. In entering into the GPL relationship, partners agree not to unilaterally modify their partnership, for example, by overlaying the terms of a non-disclosure agreement upon the license. Partners agree not to delay their source-code obligation. You can be sure that I'll honor those terms when I distribute your code. If you want to behave differently, please negotiate a new contract with me.

TechSpot

Lindows to keep its name..

lokem Newcomer, in training

uncleel Newcomer, in training

Phantasm66 Newcomer, in training

SuperCheetah Newcomer, in training

Th3M1ghtyD8 TechSpot Paladin

Arris TechSpot Evangelist

Mictlantecuhtli TS Special Forces

uncleel Newcomer, in training

uncleel Newcomer, in training

lokem Newcomer, in training

lokem Newcomer, in training