Slashdot Mirror
The ssh vs. OpenSSH Trademark Battle, Next Round
My favorite tidbit from the article is this: "[OpenBSD and OpenSSH Developer Theo] de Raadt cites U.S. trademark law that requires owners of trademarks to notify violators immediately ... de Raadt argues that Ylönen would have to be living under a rock not to be aware of OpenSSH before now. OpenSSH, released in December 1999 and in use before that, was used by more than 17% of all SSH users earlier this month, according to a study published on the University of Alberta Web site." Besides that, the story does a great job of listing other people whose products including "SSH" in their names have been left blissfully alone, making it seem that OpenSSH is getting what can only be called special treatment.
Of interest: here is a link to a page at openssh.com showing the legal papers received and scanned by members of the OpenSSH project, including the trademark application in question, showing an entirely lowercased "ssh" as the applied-for mark.
..but the reality is that he's selectivly enforcing his invalid trademark (check the trademark db if you don't believe me). And he's doing this enforcement against the product that's **gasp** putting him out of business. If he really wanted to protect the (tm), he would need to go after:
O SSH
TTSSH
NiftySSH
MacSSH
Java-SSH
TGssh
sshCE
An OpenVSM project called just SSH
SSH-OS2
...
and, well, you get the point. He's just going after OpenSSH because they're beating him in the market. And not only does he have no legal leg to stand on, but he's being a real slime by only going after the successfull one. Theo would be right to tell hime where to stick his lawyers.
Now it's open sources' turn. The right thing to do is honor the wishes of the guy who created SSH, the guy who made SSH available to you (albeit with a license you didn't like), and the guy who still tries to make a living from his hard work.
Give up the conflicting name. Not because you have to. Because it's the right thing to do.
If he doesn't want it to escalate, then he'd best compromise. I think that there's a broad feeling of indignance in the OpenSSH developer and user community that there's a "submarine trademark" (if I may put it that way) on something which we consider to be the name of a protocol. I think there's going to be a great reluctance to go ahead with a name change, because it would let the nose of the camel into the tent. What next -- remove all mention of "SSH" from the documentation?
If Ylönen demands no less than the removal of "SSH" from the project name, and OpenSSH isn't willing to do this, then he has the choice of either backing down or going ahead and making himself really unpopular by suing a free software project. This whole direction does not strike me as being one that can result in a net win for Ylönen. If he wins his trademark rights he'll establish himself as an enemy of the OpenSSH community; if he loses his trademark he looks like a poor businessman.
Instead, he should cut his losses and suddenly realise that he can license the use of the trademark to the OpenSSH project for free, on condition that they clearly distinguish themselves from his product, and perhaps provide linkage to his web site as a clarifying measure. If the real problem is customer confusion, then let's deal with the confusion without all this ugly legal sabre-rattling nonsense.
Does Ylönen realise that he's setting himself up as an enemy of the Free Software Republic? This isn't sensible.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
This is nothing more than a company trying to rescind the actions of it's founder to protect a failing business strategy.
Why? Because people are being drawn to the open-source implementation rather than paying out good money for something they can get for free.
Tatu's also probably peeved that OpenSSH will receive wider distribution (through Linux, BSD, and possibly OS-X sales/downloads) than his company's probably capable of. And thus will be more likely to achieve ubiquity than his proprietary, commercial products.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way Tatu. You can't fish something out there until it hits name-recognition status, then make them change their name so you can supplant them. The community is NOT your advertising tool.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I think we can all agree that secure shell is a descriptive name for this program (whether or not it actually is a shell is really a moot point, however), and the logical abbreviation - following standard shell style - is "ssh". Now, to avoid utter confusion, it is a good idea to make sure there aren't other programs called ssh. OpenSSH makes perfect descriptive sense for the program - it's open source, and it's a lot like ssh.
However, on the other side of the table is OpenGL and Mesa3D. Now, MesaGL would more accurately describe what Mesa3D emulates, but GL is a trademark of SGI, and they probably wouldn't like it if it was used without their permission. The best solution would be for the designers of OpenSSH to change their name and avoid any more disputes. This would also give open source developers a more moderate reputation, as opposed to the uncompromising one they seem to have nowadays.
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
Asking the question that everyone else seems to be missing, was OpenSSH named after SSH-the-application or SSH-the-protocol?
For countless reasons, I'm sure it's the latter. But that begs the question of why SSH-the-company was so incredibly incompetent that they named SSH-the-protocol after SSH-the-application even though virtually all servers and clients try to incorporate their protocol into the name. TELNET, FTP, FINGER, PING, HTTP(D), etc. Sendmail and bind are two notable exceptions, and of course this can't apply to multiprotocol clients (e.g., Mosaic, Navigator/Commuicator).
OpenSSH, to me, says one thing and one thing only - that it's an "open" implementation of the "SSH" protocol. It has absolutely no connection to SSH-the-program or SSH-the-company other than the historical curiosity that the latter originated the protocol and is pushing it on the standards track. (Something which is undoubtably dead in the water until they (SSH, not ISO) pull their head out of their corporate assh.)
If SSH-the-company wants to keep the identity of SSH-the-program distinct from SSH-the-protocol, they should change the name of SSH-the-program.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Theo de Raadt, co-creator of OpenSSH, hopes the community, not the courts, will decide the trademark skirmish. He points to a licensing agreement that allowed independent versions of SSH before Ylönen received a trademark in 1996, and he wonders why Ylönen has taken five years to decide to enforce the trademark.
He adds: "There are two main clinchers going on here. One is the fact that this licence file predates the trademark, and it grants rights that cannot be removed. And the other is the history of non-enforcement... against anybody else in the entire field using this name, then suddenly enforcing us because we're getting big enough."
Looks like it is too little too late as far as trade mark enforcement goes. If nothing else, Ylönen may be trying to cash in on the name of OpenSSH.
Although there is a point that he (Ylönen) has to do something, I suppose, and better late than never. But it is likely too late.
Oh yeh, IANAL btw
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"