3 ms·
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 care
by 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 agoI see. This plus an official trademark policy might help.