It seems that the Linux Foundation has decided that both “systemd” and “segmentation fault” (lol?) are trademarked by them.
“Patent troll” and “required actions to preserve trademarks” are two totally different things. The former is objectively bad in all ways. The second is explainable if there truly is a trademark and said gear infringes on the trademark and may be excusable if the Linux Foundation is forced to act to preserve their branding (trademark law is weird). It’s even more explainable if this is a shitty auto filter some paralegal had to build without any technical review because IP law firms are hot fucking mess. I’m also very curious to see the original graphics which I couldn’t find on Mastodon. If they are completely unrelated and there was an explicit action by someone who knew better, the explanation provides no excuse.
Attacking any company because the trademark process is stupid doesn’t accomplish much more than attacking someone paying taxes for participating in capitalism.
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.
Just like champagne only comes from the champagne region of France, true segmentation fault only comes from a linux program shitting itself.
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.
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
What is this segmentation fault logo or image? I’m not familiar with anything like that and searching for it hasn’t helped.
we don’t know, the post does not elaborate
It doesn’t matter because trademark law is about usage and active protection of rights, not origination.
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.
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.
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.
Aged like fine segmentation fault
Segmentation fault is the name of the artwork.
The artwork itself might contain the Linux logo
You mean Tux? That’s under a custom attribution license, with no noncommercial clause
You can look trademarks up. They don’t.
There is more to the story.
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.
They might not; that is just the title of the art. The art could have other infringing content.
We need to see the actual artwork to know if it was something infringing. This link means little.
Does the back include Linux logo or smth? Otherwise it makes no sense
Every time somebody makes this argument about protecting a trademark, it comes from a completely non-professional/armchair, most importantly flawed, understanding (usually by listening to too many overly confident people on Reddit) of how trademarks work. Usually we see it when Nintendo fan boys rush to the defense of Nintendo’s anti-consumer behavior. 
If I am wrong, go ahead and explain why this needs to happen. Because all I see throughout your comment is “if if if.”
My comment contains “if” because, speaking from professional expertise, there is a good possibility this is happening because of either a legal agreement I don’t have insight into so I can’t comment on or because of incompetence. It could also be happening from malice which, imo, is the kind of SLAPP bullshit Nintendo is deservedly attacked for. I’m not trying fanboy anything here; I’m just saying we need more information for pitchforks. The Linux Foundation has my implicit assumption of positive intent (unlike, say, Nintendo), so I’m willing to wait and see what happened here before I start attacking The Linux Foundation for something we have a screenshot from Mastodon on.
If you believe my professional opinion is wrong, I would love to learn more about why.
The complaint is not about the terms “systemd” and “segmentation fault.” Those are the titles of the affected artworks. Presumably the artworks themselves contain some trademarked property.
Also, this is utterly unrelated to patents.
The content isn’t anything to write home about. I don’t really get it.
Thanks for finding these. I couldn’t see them, so I assumed they were removed in response to the complaint.
You’re right, there doesn’t appear to be anything here to object to.
I can understand
Systemdbeing trademarked, but does the Linux Foundation own the trademark for Systemd…? Surely not. I’d think Red Hat before I thought Linux Foundation.
I have rather serious doubts that this is legit. More likely some joker pretending to be from the Linux Foundation sent Redbubble a takedown request.
I agree. Of the 188 marks registered to “The Linux Foundation” with the USPTO, there does not appear to be a mark for “systemd”, “fsck”, or “segmentation fault.” My guess is this is an imposter claim and the artist should counter notice this claim to Redbubble.
FWIW (and assuming the link works) here’s the marks ever registered to the Linux Foundation.
Are we certain this complaint was lodged by the Linux Foundation? Frequently DMCA takedowns happen because someone who is not the original rights holder made the complaint. Trolling of a different sort.
this has nothing even remotely to do with patents, fam
but it is indeed bullshit.
the purpose of a “trademark” is to prevent the public from being deceived about what they’re purchasing, so you can’t sell “Big Macs” on your own because the public might be deceived into thinking they were purchasing a product from McDonalds, which (I assume) has trademarked the use of “Big Mac” for fast food.
I HIGHLY doubt the Linux Foundation owns the trademark for “Segmentation Fault” with respect to random merch, so… yeah 100% bullshit
(The image does also say “Linux IP” in addition to “Linux Trademark” and I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean, since “IP” covers a multitude of dissimilar things, maybe it’s just a vague handwavy assertion they make in order to make a takedown without particularly justifying it?)
Funny you should use Big Mac as an example, since McDonalds actually lost that trademark in Europe due to some legal dispute with a pub in Ireland or something
Ok but redbubble is fucking infamous for selling merch with blatantly stolen artwork and logos.
They may act on behalf of others.
Well yes, its a storefront where anyone can sell “their” designs for a cut, the thing is, redbubble has basically no process for making sure that’s all happening above board.
I’m talking about the Linux Foundation.
Ok, then how is your comment relevant in reply to mine about redbubble?
That’s stupid. Can they not just focus on whatever their purpose is?
The Linuses (Lini?) just can’t stop screwing up this week.
I’m interested to hear your novel theories about how trademarks and patents are related
They can’t until their patent is granted for it 😂
It’s called the “US Patent and Trademark Office”, so they must be basically the same thing, right‽
You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain.
WTF!
“Linux” is owned by Linus Torvalds. Can he ask this foundation to change its name ?
Yes, but some funding for Linux (some of which goes directly to Torvalds) comes from the Linux Foundation, so why would he?
deleted by creator
Well, good for them that are happy with the segmentation fault (?) Every time I see it I start screaming
again and again: systemd is wrong. lennart poettering and redhat broke the dogma. if you use systemd you should have edge as your main browser.
systemdhad problems when it was first introduced, but it works much better now and it’s not going away. I would suggest to revisit it again.False equivalence. Edge isn’t FOSS. Systemd is.
Any forks of systemd will have to be renamed to something obviously different from plain “systemd”, but forks already work that way. We are not, for example, using “XFree86” even though the current X Window System is derived from XFree86 code.
Nor must the program files (shell commands, etc) be renamed. OpenSSH still uses the program file name
sshfor compatibility, despite “SSH” being a trademark belonging to someone else.The only dogma systemd has broken is that booting has to be slow, complicated, and unreliable. Good riddance.
The only dogma systemd has broken is that booting has to be slow, complicated, and unreliable.
This was a solved problem before systemd was a thing. And, even if we assumed that Upstart (2006), OpenRC (2007) and others wouldn’t have existed in 2010: How often do you need to reboot your system before the intrusiveness of systemd is worth it?
