Red Hat - the Bikram of Open Source?

I got into a discussion with a colleague at work the other day about Bikram and open source. Venkatesh Hariharan (Venky) was quoted in an article indicating that Bikram had attempted to patent yogic postures, which is not strictly correct.

Here is an email that I wrote to him about it:

Bikram enjoys a controversial profile in the yoga world.

One writer said: "Many people don’t know this, but Bikram yoga is actually the black sheep of yoga practices. Whenever I find myself sipping chai and chatting with a group of yogis, as soon as I confess my love for Bikram, the conversation pauses, as if I’ve just told a group of Christians that, funnily enough, satanism has me feeling better than I’ve felt in years."

Some people love to hate him, for a variety of reasons which includes his taking legal action against ex-students who teach his yoga system using his name without his permission.

My understanding of Bikram's attempt to "patent yogic postures", as it was described in the article, is that he has a copyright on his 26 posture sequence performed at 37 degree heat using the name "Bikram Yoga". He settled out of court with the "Open Source Yoga Unity" (a group of ex-students and practitioners of his yoga who did not wish to license his system) in such a way that they can do what they want, but cannot call it "Bikram Yoga".

Basically he's trying to protect and control his brand, which uses his name. It's analogous to us protecting the Red Hat brand. Linux (the code, not the name) is completely free for you to do what you wish with - "Red Hat" (the brand) is not. Similarly Yoga is an ancient science with no earthly owner, but "Bikram Yoga" is not free for all comers to plaster on their studio without submitting to Bikram's conditions (which include paying him a fee). He wants to ensure that whatever goes under the name "Bikram Yoga" conforms to his standards for his system. Which seems fair enough to me.

There has been a lot of FUD about the whole thing, and it's an easy target, but the way I understand it, it's not quite as "evil" as it's made out to be. In fact, it's quite like Red Hat's position.

(in the interests of full disclosure I'm a student of Bikram)

Basically the argument is like this:

"Our client has assembled freely available components into a particular system which they have tested and certified. You are free to use, modify, and redistribute this system or components of this system - however you may not do so using the name ["Red Hat" | "Bikram"]"

ergo: Red Hat is the Bikram of Open Source.

Sometimes when I'm sitting with Free Software activists and I tell them that I work for Red Hat the conversation pauses, as if I've just.... you get the idea.

I agree with Venky that BKS Iyengar's approach is a little more detached and free of the proprietary mentality, but I can't help but see the parallels between Bikram and Red Hat, and I think it's an ironic critique to make.

I can understand how people feel about Bikram; he has a swaggering style that just rubs some people people the wrong way.

If Red Hat is the Bikram Yoga of Open Source, then perhaps Bikram is the Marc Fleury of Yoga.

(I admit that I'm giving Bikram the benefit of the doubt here - I'm reasonably convinced that the present state of affairs is the result of not being able to win the full amount of control that he would like to in court)