The name G10
wcclark at rmi.net
Mon Jan 26 20:35:19 CET 1998
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 01:30 PM 1/27/98 +1100, Anand wrote:
>Same here. Using the name GPG would likely bring a trademark suit. However
>using the name 'GNU Privacy Guard' is unlikely to.
I think I see your logic but I cannot agree. The likelihood that PGP,
Inc. would take such an action against a GNU project is very low.
OTOH, if G10 were to change to payware at some point in the future,
then I might be persuaded to agree. As long as G10 remains non-profit,
I would bet my favorite keyboard there would be nothing said.
Imagine an attorney (who represents PGP, Inc.) presenting his case:
Atty: "But your Honor, the TLA GPG contains the same letters as the
acronym copyrighted by my client, PGP, Inc."
Judge: "So what? Does one word or name in the TLA of GPG stand for
any of the words or names used in the TLA PGP?"
Atty: "Only one, your Honor."
Judge: "I think you need more similarity than one equivalent word
and the use of the same two letters in reverse order to constitute
copyright infringement. Case dismissed."
>This is similar to a product called 'CocaCola' whose official shortening
>is 'Coke' being called 'cola'.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The 'CocaCola' example demonstrates the
high risk in using a shorten or abbreviated form of an existing,
copyrighted product name. GPG is not a shortened or abbreviated form of
PGP. Nor is GNU Privacy Guard a shortened or abbreviated form of Pretty
Curt Clark <wcclark at rmi.net>
RSA Key ID: 0xCF02DC2B
RSA Fingerprint: A160 6417 0B25 4056
EB63 89F3 A21D 5FE1
DSS Key ID: 0x0E6BCEA9
DSS Fingerprint: F8FF 0432 D9A7 0BEF 83A6
8E5C 523E 7284 0E6B CEA9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-devel