Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does the use of a trademark word to refer unambiguously to a specific > technical protocol in package descriptions and documentation (that is, > not in marketing materials) even require a trademark license? I know > that it certainly does not in Denmark, but of course that does not say > anything about the rest of the world.
It does not in the US either, last time I checked. The legitimate purpose of a trademark is to prevent confusion about the origin of the good (or service), and this sort of usage doesn't cause confusion. This is the reason we generally consider trademarks unproblematic. As long as they are restricted to their original intended use, they don't conflict with the goals of free software. Avoid any uses which might cause confusion about the origin or endorsement of something, and you'll usually be fine; and that's a good thing to do anyway. If you really want to be on the safe side, write "This is *not* MIT's implementation of Kerberos." after anything which describes it as implementing the Kerberos standard or Kerberos protocol or whatever. That makes it clear that you're *not* trying to pass this off as MIT Kerberos. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
