4 ms·

It's not clear to me that he has any case at all with the trademark. You don't get to dictate how everyone uses your trademark. Some uses are acceptable without

It's not clear to me that he has any case at all with the trademark. You don't get to dictate how everyone uses your trademark. Some uses are acceptable without permission: "Usually it is permissible to use another person’s or company’s trademark or service mark when referring to a product or service of that person or company, provided it is clear that the mark is being used truthfully to refer to that specific product or service. It may not be used in a way that might mislead others as to that person’s or company’s affiliation with, sponsorship of or endorsement of your company or its products or services—for example, using a logo instead of simply the word form of the mark, or using the mark more prominently or frequently than necessary." [1] This appears to be how Wind River is using it. [1] http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkUseFactSheet.aspx http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/Tradema...

randx838 11y ago
Agreed. I could see this being possible with a pre-existing trademark policy, and an explicitly different trademark for "test quality" code, and being very careful about it all, but otherwise I just don't see it. Trademark is to correctly identify the source of a good, and the source here is identified correctly. If it was creative commons licensed, they would be required to do what they have done. Not only all that, it seems like this is a bit strange that their complaint is that they called it grsecurity without using a blessed version, so their response is to stop giving out blessed versions publicly. Won't that just encourage more companies to do exactly what they are complaining about?
- davorak 11y ago
  > Won't that just encourage more companies to do exactly what they are complaining about? It will become much harder for any company to argue the they are using grsecurity if they are not a sponsor since it is not public disseminated any more. This should give their lawyers considerable more leverage and the offending company's lawyers are more likely to warn discourage stone walling the grsecurity team since the company will be in a weaker position.
  - randx838 11y ago
    I see. This plus an official trademark policy might help.
foota 11y ago
I believe the point is that by modifying their code and making use of unsupported versions that they are no longer using the product and therefore lose their right to use the trademark under those rules?
strcat 11y ago
Wind River isn't using grsecurity. They're using their own variant / port of it and advertising it as grsecurity. spender just wants them to say they have an "unofficial port of grsecurity" if they're unwilling to pay for it to be done properly (i.e. a well-done port, auditing of code specific to that kernel, backporting of all relevant fixes, etc.).

randx838 11y ago

Agreed. I could see this being possible with a pre-existing trademark policy, and an explicitly different trademark for "test quality" code, and being very careful about it all, but otherwise I just don't see it. Trademark is to correctly identify the source of a good, and the source here is identified correctly. If it was creative commons licensed, they would be required to do what they have done. Not only all that, it seems like this is a bit strange that their complaint is that they called it grsecurity without using a blessed version, so their response is to stop giving out blessed versions publicly. Won't that just encourage more companies to do exactly what they are complaining about?

davorak 11y ago
> Won't that just encourage more companies to do exactly what they are complaining about? It will become much harder for any company to argue the they are using grsecurity if they are not a sponsor since it is not public disseminated any more. This should give their lawyers considerable more leverage and the offending company's lawyers are more likely to warn discourage stone walling the grsecurity team since the company will be in a weaker position.
- randx838 11y ago
  I see. This plus an official trademark policy might help.

foota 11y ago

I believe the point is that by modifying their code and making use of unsupported versions that they are no longer using the product and therefore lose their right to use the trademark under those rules?

strcat 11y ago

Wind River isn't using grsecurity. They're using their own variant / port of it and advertising it as grsecurity. spender just wants them to say they have an "unofficial port of grsecurity" if they're unwilling to pay for it to be done properly (i.e. a well-done port, auditing of code specific to that kernel, backporting of all relevant fixes, etc.).