On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:10:34 +0000 John Halton wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol > > > description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other > > > than "ssh" or "Secure Shell". > > > > This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how > > he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not > > registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the > > right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as > > trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. > > I agree. The restriction relates to (probably unregistered) trade > marks rather than copyright. It may be inconvenient in some > circumstances, and could be expressed more clearly, but it's not > non-free.
IMO, the problem was not non-freeness, but GPL-compatibility. This is a name-change restriction, phrased as if it were a condition for getting copyright-related permissions (because it's placed directly under the copyright notice, inside what looks very much like a copyright permission notice), even though it's related to unregistered trademarks. Is such a restriction compatible with the GNU GPL? As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpPeR6NQh1yV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
