Subject: Re: Identifying my version of a GPL program
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:35:12 +0100

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:10:34PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:07:05PM -0800, Greg Broiles (gbroiles@netbox.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 12:07:16PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > SvA was primiarily concerned with control over the functional
> > > characteristics of the Sega Trademark Security System, addressing both
> > > reverse engineering rights under copyright and trademark protections
> > > under the Lanham act.  The strategic objective wasn't certification of a
> > > product's compliance to a mark, but the functional equivalence of two
> > > independently created systems.  
> > 
> > Straw man.
> > 
> > Bernard's post did not discuss certification marks, it discussed the
> > behavior of software and computer systems. I agree that Sega v. Accolade
> > would be distracting if a person tried to read it as relevant to a
> > certification mark question, which is not the context in which I
> > mentioned it. The "certification mark" notion is a distraction.
> 
> Wrong:  
> 
> A Cert mark is a special case of trademark Bernaard specifically
> mentioned the latter.  I suggested the former might be a better fit.
> 
> > It would be a grave mistake to allow companies like Sega to rework
> > their anti-reverse-engineering claims into certification claims. 
> 
>     For reasons their own, they want to make sure that whoever is using
>     that software to collaborate with them is using one of their
>     versions, and not a modified variant by someone else.  
> 
> This isn't control over reverse engineering, it's an operating decision
> of the firm in question, as I understand Bernard's post.

correct ...

actually, to tell more about it, they use this in replies to calls for
tender, and do not want people to give inadequate answers because
someone modified the software ...

My opinion is they could just tell people to use officially certified
versions ... but it is not their current position.

  ... and I like the problem because of its interoperability issues,
and the fact that it tests the GPL protection level.

Bernard

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX