The name G10

[Curt Clark]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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 
Good Privacy.

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
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNM1V9FI+coQOa86pEQJ5OACcDu+i8ZXv6hV0ovy2Nmpu86r2xRsAoPNg
QfDcgDs2GLu59DclOIyCbylb
=bRvm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----