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.

Does anyone have significant lack of worth that they'd like to go and contest
this?  I'd do it but I have a family and a house now, and I stand to lose
a lot :-)...

I personally think this would be an easy one to have thrown out of court.

David Brownlee sez:
/*
 * 	This might have 'interesting' consequences for NetBSD/sparc...
 * 
 * > ANNOUNCEMENT:
 * > -------------
 * > 
 * > SPARC International's lawyers have the view that the terms SPARC/Linux
 * > or Linux/SPARC (or most other variations) constitute an infringementof SI's 
 * > trademark.  They would deem "Linux for SPARC Processors" as
 * > acceptable.  They also object to the use of the word "sparc" in any
 * > part of a URL.  So for example the url:
 * > 
 * >	 "http://www.geog.ubc.ca/sparc/howto/netboot.html" 
 * > 
 * > is a trademark infringement. 
 * > 
 * 
 * 
 * - "It was at that point I realised there might be a chance for myself as a
 * -  caring human being. Unable to decide whether to feel hopeful or disgusted,
 * -  I chose both and opened a bottle of wine to celebrate"
 * 
 */





				--*greywolf;
--
	Microsoft Network Adapter (120 VAC)
 (o)========\\           
 _______     \\     //   -----
/::::::.\===== ====//===| | l |	 
---------     //   77    \_n_/	 
 [""""]======''	  //		 
  -==-