Re: OT: SSH claimes trademark enfringement by OpenSSH

[Frank Lewis "Jr." <flewis@always24x7.com>]

IMHO: 

Tatu should go suck a d...... Well, you know where I'm going. Like the
slashdot article said, there was plenty of time before now to talk with
the OSSH project if he had a problem with "SSH" appearing in the name of
another product. But if the issue reaches a boil and he somehow forces
the project to change the name, my votes would be for SecureTTY or
OpenSRSH (Open Secure Remote Shell). If he actually pulls a stupid move
like that though, I know of 3 major ISPs that would drop his ssh product
like a hot potatato.

Just my opinion.

FLJ


On 14 Feb 2001 14:52:47 -0800, Richard T. Robino wrote:
> On 2/14/01 8:00 AM, "Al Lipscomb" <arl@q7.net> wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> I've just read Tatu Ylonen's email to the OpenSSH developers mailing
> >> list (article may be found here:
> >> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/14/1120247&mode=thread) & I was
> >> wondering what do u think about that.
> >> 
> > Sounds like his bussiness model is failing.
> > 
> >> IMHO, Tatu Ylonen is certainly right from a legal standpoint but OpenSSH
> >> has been around for a while so why he rides the legal horses now and not
> >> before ? maybe because OpenSSH is getting more & more coverage as well
> >> as user base/usage. I don't deny him his rights (I'm far from being able
> >> to do that) but well, look @ Netscape for example. They have created
> >> LDAP and we have OpenLDAP. There are many open* projects around and for
> >> me this is sufficient to distinguish between those & proprietary stuff.
> >> 
> > I think that there is a good chance he could lose his trademark if
> > he presses this. His relase of an "open" version may negate his ability
> > to enforce his trademark. Time will tell. If a new name is found for
> > OpenSSH there could be enough inertia to remove "ssh" from admins
> > everywhere.
> > 
> 
> Seems to me that one would have to defend publishing guidelines for a
> _process_, not branded, say "cola drinking", so that one knew what the
> guideline described. Once a process is described as such, and termed, it
> does not make sense to extend an exclusive right to a product which uses a
> piece of that term when it is used to describe the activity of the process.
> 
> If such extension were to be allowed, every relationship that has fueled new
> invention would be exposed as a massive network of infringement. One could
> even argue that ATT or Berkely had the original right's to what was
> described as "rsh" "rcp" etc., and that for DataFellows (the company name I
> have always associated with the pay-for SSH utilities, not SSH Comm.
> whatever) to write programs which added similary functionaly and had even
> more similar names, is the same practice which Tatu accuses OpenSSH of
> doing.
> 
> <manifesto>
> Personally, I feel sorry for *some* companies who are going to tank because
> of open-source graciousness. It is exhilirating to see a M$-killer app come
> along, as it has been so difficult to compete with them on an even playing
> field. I've used the commercial SSH product from DataFellows for some years,
> and have more than once looked at their group photo thinking, "Now that's a
> good, real company. Hurray for them." I think it's too bad, but it is not
> OpenSSH's fault, and it isn't anything Tatu or Theo or anyone else can stop.
> 
> SSH is an important _protocol_, so market pressure behind such a desirable
> item is too strong to ignore when there is an open standard about. The fact
> that a company can make money from a product which is distributed for free
> (but not without cost) is anti-competitive (until there is "free" food,
> land, etc). Sun and other's have realized this, and obviously are in the
> open-source game more for the anti-competitive loophole than they are the
> good of the world.
> </manifesto>
> 
> Sad to see that these phenomena have created some casualties within the
> camps of two wonderful organizations. One more than another perhaps, I guess
> time will tell.
> 
> < back to lurking, sorry if this was OT ;) >
> 
> --Rick
> 
> 
>