While perusing the usual alleyways of the Internet the other day, I was fairly surprised to see this article on OSNews. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the situation, let me indulge you.
Quite some time ago, Lindows were gridlocked in battle with Microsoft over an issue regarding their trade name, Lindows. The issue at hand was that ‘Lindows’ and ‘Windows’ sounded a little too close for comfort for the Redmond behemoth. The trademark infringement issue was ultimately resolved between the two warring parties, and Lindows changed their name and product branding to the less litigious ‘Linspire’. The company then spent time doing what they do best - trying to create a word class desktop Operating System.
The core product that Linspire offer is not free. Like many other distributors, Linspire have cobbled together their product from a combination of free and non-free components. Although the distribution is based around free software, that software is delivered with a proprietary tool (Click n’ Run), and many other non-free elements such as codecs, fonts and other software is included. These non-free elements are licensed by Linspire for their inclusion in the product. As such, Linspire cannot be copied as freely as a distribution such as Ubuntu or Debian, due to these non-free components.
Recently a chap named Andrew Betts decided to take the non-free elements out of Linspire and release the free parts as another Linspire-derived distribution called Freespire. This act of re-releasing distributions or code is certainly nothing new and is fully within the ethos of Open Source. In fact, many of the distributions we use today were derived from existing tools. Unfortunately, Linspire saw this as a problem and asked for the Freespire name to be changed.
There are a number of things wrong with this picture. The first and most telling issue is the sheer hypocrisy of the request coming from Linspire of all people. Back when Lindows was their trading name, I felt rather uncomfortable with them using a name that was so similar to Windows. The approach seemed to smack of a cheap shot at getting Windows users on board, and the software seemed a rather cheap attempt at capitalising on bringing these users over. Although Lindows held up a good fight against Microsoft, and irrespective of the rights and wrongs of choosing a normal word (Windows) as a trademark, ‘Lindows’ was only one single, solitary letter away from ‘Windows’. Aside from the lexical issue, it seemed that the Lindows Operating System was also quite obviously targeted towards existing Windows users. To me it seems that a competing software product that looks to be targeted at Windows users in conjunction with a trademark that is only one letter away from the competitor’s product name could certainly cause confusion. Sure, it is not going to cause confusion with anyone vaguely versed in modern IT, but their target audience are largely consisted of people who are not versed in IT. With this recent incident, it seems as though the line is ‘well its OK for us to do it to Microsoft, but its not OK for someone to do it to us’. Hypocrisy defined.
Solving the problem
After Betts was asked to change the name, a page appeared at http://freespire.jasp.com/ with some text outlining the issue. It is likely that the page will be removed at some point in the future, so here it is for completeness:
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The freespire project is changing its name, as it is creating confusion and misunderstanding. The project will now be assuming the name ’squiggle’
“freespire” was the term I gave to a private project I had been working on. The project was comprised of various open source components, taken from the freely available source repository for the Linspire operating system. Somehow my project got submitted to distrowatch.com as a bona-fide Linux distribution. I can only assume whoever did this had good intentions, unfortunately it was done without my consent.
Subsequent widespread distribution of this project has led to much misunderstanding, based largely on the name. So to make it clear:
This project is not a free version of the Linspire operating system and is not made by Linspire Inc..
Some examples of the problems caused by the term ‘freespire’:
- It confused some into thinking that if you just take out the proprietary licensed pieces of Linspire, you still have Linspire. This impression is false because the total Linspire experience relies on proprietary components, such as mp3, Java, Flash, Quick Time, Windows Media, Real, fonts, etc…
- I worried that many people would try ‘freespire’ and use this to judge the Linspire product. I have already read posts on the net that go something like this, “I have never tried Linspire because I didn’t want to pay, so I was excited to finally try it when I saw Freespire. I downloaded it, and I wasn’t impressed. I don’t see what all the big deal is around Linspire. I didn’t see anything very special there.”
- I had heard from Linspire that their support department was getting calls and emails from users who thought Freespire was their product. As much as I tried to put disclaimers in to the contrary, some still were confused to this point. I’d even seen reviews for my project that said Linspire was the creator.
Linspire has expressed complete support to me with the project itself, as long as it didn’t infringe on any 3rd-party licensing. But the name has caused problems for both parties so I decided to change it.
To help alleviate any confusion, I contacted Linspire and they made an extremely generous offer to us all. They want everyone who has been following my project to experience “the real” Linspire, FOR FREE!!! For a limited time, they are making available a coupon code called “FREESPIRE” that will give you a free digital copy of Linspire! Please visit http://linspire.com/freespire for details.
For those of you that are still interested in my project please visit the LinspireNetwork (after getting your FREE copy of Linspire I hope!)
Many thanks for you time, and don’t forget to enjoy Linux
Andrew Betts
Reading through this page, the language and flow of the words screams marketing to me. I am certainly not insinuating that Betts has been forced into writing this page, or that the Linspire marketing drones have written it and appended his name, but it certainly doesn’t sound quite right to me. I would have expected something along the lines of ‘Freespire has been changed to Squiggle to avoid confusion with the Linspire product’, but this is not the case. Instead we are treated to choice marketing cuts such as ‘To help alleviate any confusion, I contacted Linspire and they made an extremely generous offer to us all’. Wow. What is this one-chance-in-a-lifetime-not-sold-in-stores offer? Luckily, he continues, ‘they want everyone who has been following my project to experience “the real” Linspire, FOR FREE!!!’. Now, pray tell, how do we get this ‘real’ version of the software ‘FOR FREE!!!’? ‘For a limited time, they are making available a coupon code called “FREESPIRE” that will give you a free digital copy of Linspire! Please visit http://linspire.com/freespire for details’. Oh…thanks.
I am sorry to say but I find throwing free as in beer copies of Linspire out as the solution to the problem, or as a means to push attention away from the issue as a cheap shot at solving the problem and to capitalise on the attention to shift more copies of Linspire. The fundamental issue is that the right to create a product and call what you like is being stamped on by an organisation that fought in a court of law to essentially do the same thing. Throwing free copies at the problem does not solve it, and I feel it instead comes across as a rather cheap shot to maintain the status quo.
Drawing a conclusion
This entire issue is hinged around the concept of ‘confusion’. Is there likely to be more or less confusion between ‘Lindows’ and ‘Windows’ or ‘Linspire’ and ‘Freespire’? I am not sufficient convinced that a newcomer to IT is going to be any less confused with either side of the fence. I don’t doubt that confusion can occur in both cases, and both Microsoft and Linspire need to protect their interests, but I just find the fuss kicked off by Linspire over Freespire as disappointing given their history.
I know Kevin Carmony from Linspire reasonably well and have an enormous amount of respect for him. Kevin is committed to not only getting Linux on more desktops, but to also improve the image and public confidence in his organisation. Having spoke to Kevin about some of the methods that could improve these relations, I am confident that he is working hard to better communicate how the ideals of Linspire and the ideals of Open Source are aligned. Unfortunately, this incident has knocked my own confidence in Linspire, and I hope that reparations can be made in a way that does not just include throwing out free copies.
So, what do you think? A real problem or a storm in a teacup?
What nonsense Jono!
"Unfortunately, Linspire saw this as a problem and asked for the Freespire name to be changed."
We never did any such thing. Andrew decided to change the name on his own, we never asked him to, let alone threaten to sue, etc., which is what you'd be implying to compare this event to the Microsoft lawsuit.
I very briefly communicated with Andrew and HE decided to change the name, without any arm twisting what so ever!
Your comparison would be further flawed, even if we had asked him to change names (which we never did), because the term "windows" was a generic term, where as "Linspire" is not a generic word, but a fanciful one and legitimate trademark.
The reason Andrew's page "smells of marketing," is that he is a Linspire "Insider" and a fan of Linspire and what we're trying to accomplish. He was kind enough to have drafted a message that properly explained the realities of the situation, specifically to avoid such assumptions as you've made, even if you chose not to read and believe it.
This is why Linux companies have such a hard time trying to make it. There are conspiracy theorists around every turn to drag them down. Microsoft might not have many friends, but with friends like the Linux media, who needs enemies?
Your story is so far from the truth. A few others in the media had similar questions as you did. However, unlike you, they contacted us and/or Andrew to get the facts straight before drafting their stories.
You have my phone number and email address. Shame on you for not having used them.
Kevin Carmony
President & CEO, Linspire, Inc.
was there ever?
Was there ever a product called Freespire or was it a marketing hoax by Linspire to gain some press and free advertising for their campaign (including the "free" version they're temporarilly shipping)?
Given the past attitude of the company I'd not be surprised if they pulled a stunt like that.
Responses
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughts. Comments inline:
"We never did any such thing. Andrew decided to change the name on his own, we never asked him to, let alone threaten to sue, etc., which is what you'd be implying to compare this event to the Microsoft lawsuit."
I am not sure how I implied that you would have sued him, and my intention was certainly not to imply such a thing. From this article (http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9384033541.html) you said ""My reaction? It was no different than when I see people take code from any of our open source projects (Nvu, Lphoto, Lsongs, etc.). It's a good thing. I worried about the name". The article then goes on to say 'Following a conversation with Carmony, Betts agreed to change the project's name'.
The point I am making is not that you forced anyone to change the name, but there was a concern in the first place about a trademark issue. It seems that the prime concern is confusion between Linspire and Freespire, and my point is that this issue was part of the problem that occured beteen Microsoft and Lindows.
"This is why Linux companies have such a hard time trying to make it. There are conspiracy theorists around every turn to drag them down. Microsoft might not have many friends, but with friends like the Linux media, who needs enemies?"
That is unfair. I myself and my colleagues in LUGRadio have given untold praise to Linspire. This praise was earned by Linspire in your interview on the show, and we have communicated our approval of you and your company many, many times over. In addition to this, at various conferences where I have spoken, I have cited yourself and Linspire as as a prime example of how a company is working to improve Linux on the desktop and continually working to improve their relations with the community.
Although I have utmost respect for Linspire, I am going to express my view equally when I feel you guys drop the ball too. No company can have a 100% batting record, and as much as I have praised your actions, I am also going to be critical when I identify something that I feel is wrong.
"Your story is so far from the truth. A few others in the media had similar questions as you did. However, unlike you, they contacted us and/or Andrew to get the facts straight before drafting their stories."
Bear in mind firstly that this is a weblog, and everything posted here is opinion. Every single entry on my O'Reilly Weblog and my own personal weblog is the subject of my, and only my opinion. If I was to produce this as an article for a magazine or the O'Reilly Network, I would have exaustively explored the issue in further depth.
Saying that, one thing that I have noticed in the last month or so is that people are treating my O'Reilly Weblog as more of a platform for authorative articles, the kind of article that appears in magazines and on other parts of the O'Reilly Network. My priority is to ensure that everything I write is as fair as possible, and if my Weblog is interpreted as a platform to distribute heavily researched content, it stops becoming a weblog. I had never really considered this change in perception for a blog until now.
As such, in future, I am going to consider how I produce content for this blog and adapt my production to the type of content. This may indeed involve having to treat weblog entries as more like articles, or it may not. I think it is rather dependent on the content. It is a tough line to draw, but rest assured I am keen on striking the right balance.
I think where this has got sticky is that this evolution of my blog into a platform for articles has really been highlighted by this story.
Jono
Re:
I think you’re grasping at straws. Your reading of the story is clearly coloured by a desire to find something wrong on their part. The writing on that page provides could easily be an honestly embarrassed developer’s apology.
To be clear, I’m saying neither that Linspire is innocent nor that Mr. Betts was coerced to do something. What I am saying is that the clues you present are too thin to draw either conclusion, and that you are trying too hard.
You can find patterns in the static on your TV, too, if you stare hard enough.
I am certainly no fan of Linspire; but neither am I a fan of prejudice.
Reply...
Was there ever a product called Freespire or was it a marketing hoax by Linspire to gain some press and free advertising for their campaign (including the "free" version they're temporarilly shipping)?
Given the past attitude of the company I'd not be surprised if they pulled a stunt like that.<.b>
You can read about this on Andrew's page at http://www.jasp.com/freespire.html
Andrew never intended this to be considered a bona-fide distro. It was just a project he had started on his own and then someone posted it to Distrowatch as a distro.
So, no, this was NOT a publicity stunt by Linspire, but thanks for thinking we could possibly be that brilliant over here. ;-)
As for the free give-a-way, that was just something I suggested to Andrew "for fun," but he liked the idea so we did it. If Andrew hadn't have liked the idea, we would have never done it.
We have been nothing but supportive of Andrew's project, at every turn, and in every possible way, and that's why it hurts when otherwise is implied.
Kevin Carmony
President & CEO, Linspire, Inc.
Jono...
There is a BIG leap from me "worrying" that the name might confuse people, and the suggestion that someone we threatened or cajoled Andrew into changing it, or that we made this a trademark issue. If Andrew and Linspire never made this a trademark issue, how can you? This issue of trademark use never even came up. Neither Andrew, myself, or Linspire EVER even thought about that, let alone discussed it. It was Andrew, upon seeing the confusion first hand (not just the few comments I made to him about some confusion I had seen), that decided to simply change the name. I doubt he was even thinking "I wonder if this infringes on their trademark?" WE at Linspire hadn 't even had that thought or discussion.
Jono, as you've pointed out, you know your weblog is followed by others, forwarded, and at times picked up by wider press. As you're learning, with that comes a responsibility to be careful before expressing your opinion. I have a weblog as well, that is picked up at times in the Linspire Letter and read by hundreds of thousands of people. Would it be right for me to speculate on you, your businesses, your life, etc., in a way that made you look bad, without at least doing some basic checking? Weblogs are a new creature, but I think a valuable lesson can be learned about their power to influence, and with power comes responsibility.
I am appreciative of the support you've shown to Linspire in the past. You have been able to do much to educate people about the realities of Linspire. I just wish you would have talked to Andrew or myself before publicly speculating (and actually implying) some wrong doing or impropriety in this case. Your weblog (and "opinion" for that matter) would have been much more valuable, helpful and informative with that additional information.
Truth is discovered, not invented,and "good" opinions are the same. Columbus didn't want the world to be round, so *poof* it was round. At the time, everyone thought the world was flat, yet he choose to set out and discover the truth. I assume you'd prefer your opinion be based on fact and truth more than speculation and assumption, when possible. I was just an email or phone call away, yet you didn't bother. FUD hurts open source and Linux, no matter where the source is from, intentional or otherwise.
If you have concerns that you feel an open source or Linux company is misbehaving, in the future I'd suggest you dig a little deeper before hypothesizing, to avoid hurting them when the facts are quite different. I have absolutely no problem with you calling us to task if you think we've done something wrong. My point, is that you should research all the facts, including talking to the source (in this case Andrew and Linspire) first, and then go public with your opinion. I know it's a drag to have to be so careful with your opinion, but when it's being spread around so widely, that influence needs to be guarded out of responsibility.
Keep up the good work, but please, remember...I'm just an email away, 24/7. I hope this has been a good learning lesson for us both, and that our good relationship will remain and together we can help advance worthwhile objectives. I know I will do my part.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin
I think in this situation we can both learn some interesting lessons.
On one side, I feel like the situation could have been better managed by Linspire. I am certainly not the only peson who has expressed concern at the events in this story, and maybe the concerns could have been better settled with a different approach from Linspire. As we have discussed before in our conversations, I think there is a slight trepidation that people have with Linspire, and this trepidation may have triggered some of the less than positive responses to this story. I am positive this trepidation can be resolved, as we have discussed in many conversations before.
On my side I think it would have made sense to get in touch with yourself first, and I acknowedge that it was a little forward to write something with such assumption. As a writer, I deem the difference between formal articles and blogs as a fairly important difference, although I accept this difference may subtle to some.
I am certainly eager that we retain our good relationship and exchange a few beers in a pub either on your or our side of the pond. :)
Jono