> > This is really interesting.  How do they figure that the use of SPARC/sparc
> > in one context is OK while the use in another context is not?  Either it
> > applies to all contexts or to none.
> 
> I think I'll start a company called Apple Computers, or maybe Apple
> Records, no wait... maybe a roadside fruit-stand called "Apples"...
> 
> Intellectual property law is a huge murky subject I won't pretend to
> understand.  But I do know that context _does_ count.
> 
> You need an identifier and a specifier and all that...
> 
> So there's probably something similar going on in the crazed minds of
> Sun's lawyers.

FYI, Sparc International is *not* part of Sun, it's an independent
organization that holds the SPARC compliance registration and
some of the trademarks.  It recently moved 2 blocks up the
road from Axil, which we found amusing.

I believe that the issue here is the implication in the OS names
that the OSes are somehow SPARC-International approved or certified.
While the usage "Sparc processor" is sufficiently generic to indicate
it's related to the hardware, not the registry/certification stuff
SI does, the existing OS names may be too close to what they think
looks like SI certified.

I suspect that an approach to SI suggesting that the Linux and NetBSD
people sign license agreements (obviously free licenses...) and perhaps
disclaimers in any release materials for the OSes to make it clear they
aren't SI certified will be fine.  I shouldn't be involved as Axil is
clearly involved in a business manner with Sparc International, but
someone else can make that pitch.

-george william herbert
gherbert@axil.com
gherbert@crl.com