Re: "wireguard" implementation improperly merged and needs revert

["Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason%zx2c4.com@localhost>]

Hi Maya,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:51 AM <maya%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> Yes, we get it, you took a trademark over the term WireGuard so we can't
> use it, so you can send threatening emails about how you don't like the
> changes. Why don't we just call it wg and get it over with?

Huh? What's a trademark have anything to do with this at all? The name
is trademarked so that some rogue company doesn't make "wireguard
antivirus" or something and confuse the heck out of everyone, the same
way that "Linux" is trademarked by Linus, and the way that "NetBSD" is
trademarked by the NetBSD Foundation. It's not something meant to have
any effect on projects like NetBSD, let alone those I have immense
respect for, again like NetBSD. So, please leave that stuff out of it.
It's really entirely unrelated, a red herring, and something that's
sure to kick up lots of flames here without good reason.

No, this discussion here is motivated by precisely the opposite
concern: I *care* about NetBSD, and I want it to have an
implementation that I would be proud to send WireGuard users to use,
and encourage people to build things on, and hold it up and say, "this
here is a WireGuard implementation; use it!" I observed that the haste
of the integration here is not likely to yield that result, so I'm
asking to put the breaks on, and volunteering my development time to
make that happen.

So, before you direct others to go crazy with the legal-baiting,
please consider that this is motivated out of a respect for the NetBSD
project, not some other weird motivation involving trademark law.

Jason