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

  • bluGill@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months 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
        13
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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.