Subject: Re: Identifying my version of a GPL program
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:03:48 -0800
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:03:48 -0800
on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:53:57PM -0800, Greg Broiles ( wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:10:34PM -0800, wrote:
> > 
> > A Cert mark is a special case of trademark Bernaard specifically
> > mentioned the latter.  I suggested the former might be a better fit.

> And I suggest that your position is both poorly supported by existing
> caselaw and dangerous as a matter of policy.


    Harris Tweed.
    Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval
    Underwriters Laboratories Approved
    various "MS Windows certified" marks

> Nevertheless -  
> If the mark (certification mark, if calling it that makes you happy)
> is not used in a way which causes confusion or dilution, where's the
> infringement? 

Infringement of what?  The cert mark or the copyright?  I'm suggesting
that some functional test be performed not *as* the cert, but as a
criterion for qualifying for the cert.

> If there's no infringement, what good does the mark do as an
> enforcement tool?
> > > 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.  
> There are plenty of occasions where people can't have what they want;
> this looks like one of them.
> More specifically, they can't get what they want, in the United States,
> by using trademarks (especially hidden ones) to force compatible or
> work-alike implementations to inadvertently display an otherwise 
> infringing mark.

You're grossly misreading my posts.  Bernard has indicated as much.

Karsten M. Self <>
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.            
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]