Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Secure Shell Will Remain 'SSH'

Posted by michael on from the sanity-prevails dept.

cdlu sent in a follow-up to the SSH dispute - the IETF has rejected a request from SSH, the company, to change the name of SSH, the protocol. This will save a lot of people from typing 'ln -s /usr/bin/secsh /usr/bin/ssh'.

13 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Ylonnen's response by the_tsi · · Score: 3

    This just in:

    Tatu Ylonnen was overheard after the decision saying "Oh sshit."

    -Chris
    ...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...

  2. Newsflash by Anoriymous+Coward · · Score: 4

    IETF sued for trademark infringement.

    I wonder if International Paper have a trademark on their initials?

    --

  3. Re:Lawyers, again... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 5

    KlausBreuer,

    I'd like to ask you to change your login name. Your name infringes on my trademark. I know this is an inconvenience for you, but I would greatly appreciate it. Please?

    -----------------
    And I'll bet you wouldn't do it, no matter how nice the request.

    Why should the IETF inconvenience MILLIONS of users so that a single individual can profit?

  4. conflict by nate1138 · · Score: 3

    Under the normal run of things my opinion would be: "good, screw the company that wants to trademark the name of an open protocol". But this is a little different. He WROTE the damn thing, then gave it away. I don't think keeping the name is too much to ask. Especially considering how widespread this product has become. Do you know any sysadmins who don't use it??

    --
    Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    1. Re:conflict by Admiral+Llama · · Score: 3

      So you're saying you would rather he had whipped out the lawyers from the beginning and fiercly protected his trademark? Honestly that's what he should have done, but he tried to be a nice guy and now he's screwed. Once would think the community would be more sympathetic to a simple request from someone who was generous and non-militant. The guy did everything that Slashdoters scream for and this is how he's repaid.

  5. Wrongc analysis: ln -s by hardaker · · Score: 5

    They decided not to change the usage of the word SSH as the name of the protocol. What OpenSSH decides to call its binaries is an entirely different decision that the IETF has nothing to do with.

    For the record, the decision in the room was somewhat split, leaning about 2:1 towards not changing the name. It's still unclear if the name will be trademarked in the documents, which was the second (replaced?) request made to the IETF secure shell working group.

    --
    The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
  6. Don't relax yet by wiredog · · Score: 5
    "I'm very disappointed," Ylonnen said after the meeting. "What will I do next? Consult my lawyers."

    He could win. Several months ago (and I don't have time to find the link) a domain name had to be given up by its holder even though the ICANN arbitration held that he didn't. The person who wanted the name just sued in US court for trademark infringement, and won. You see, the IETF decisions are not binding in the courts. So Ylonnen could sue for trademark infringement. If he won, it would not matter what the IETF said.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  7. Hold on folks, (tm) isn't all bad by ReconRich · · Score: 4

    I know that we here as /. are against all things related to intellectual property, but perhaps its time to look at the other side. Trademarks (in the US) are *NOT* designed to protect companies... they are designed to protect consumers. What you say ? They exist (primarily) so that consumers know where a product actually came from. Tatu has been *VERY* liberal in his offer to allow usage of ssh (if he had been granted a trademark) and all he (seems) to have been concerned about is persons NOT his customers believing that they were. This is NOT a Bad Thing (tm). Trademarks and Trademark law DO serve a useful purpose in our society, and its sad that this community has its typical knee jerk reaction.

    -- Rich

    --
    Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
  8. Except for one thing... by NetJunkie · · Score: 4

    In his original license he said that if someone modified his code and it was compatible with the original, it HAD to be called ssh. The others are still compatible with his code and based on it..so they are just doing what he originally asked.

  9. Genericized Trademarks by TBone · · Score: 3

    • Coke - For cola, or in some places, any soda
    • Kleenex - for a facial tissue
    • Saran Wrap - for cellophane
    • Roller Blade- for inline roller skates
    • UNIX - for any OS that looks like the work done by AT&T/Bell Labs

    While Tatu may have intended to keep his Trademark from public use, the fact of the matter is, like many popular brand names, it's become a generic term. You don't see the Trademark Police descending on little Mom&Pop sandwich stores in Tennessee when a conversation like this happens:

    Me: I'll Have a Coke.
    Them: What kind of Coke?
    Me: (sarcastically) Well, what kind of Coke do you have?
    Them: Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, 7-up and root beer.
    ...do you? Tatu needs to get over himself and be glad that he's created something that has become so pervasive that it is being used as a generic term.
    --

    This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

  10. Stay on target by doctrbl · · Score: 3
    ...excerpt from SSH website...

    Q: Many programs today use "ssh" as a command name in competitive and freeware products. Does SSH intend to require programmers to rewrite their programs to eliminate this naming convention?
    A: No. SSH has no desire to cause any inconvenience to users or developers who have been accustomed to using the "ssh" command name with our products. Accordingly, we will provide, free of charge, a trademark license to use the command name "ssh" with proper attribution.

    From what I've seen (IANAL), "proper attribution" means you have to say "ssh was made by these guys, not us" when you decide to roll your own. Their real beef seems to be with companies putting SSL in their names, and as part of their corporate identities. Look at the chip market; how funny would it be if AMD were called BetterIntel, or Intellium, or ByeByeIntel? OK, the Intel thing is slightly off-topic, but I think my point is clear.

  11. Re:Lawyers, again... by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 4
    How come that such a simple, reasonable request, clothed in polite terms, was rejected?

    Simple? Yes. Polite terms? Yes. Reasonable? Not even close, if my understanding of the situation is correct. As I understand it, the guy who doesn't want them to use his SSH trademark anymore is the same guy who was involved in the development of the protocol/standard in the first place. At best, he's guilty of deciding way after the fact that he didn't want them using SSH as a name. At worst, he's trying to delibrately use a "submarine trademark" to monopolize the name recognition SSH has gained, in no small part due to the standard itself.

  12. I am not a lawyer, but ... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3
    Ob. Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. I just get pestered about this issue by our lawyers.

    I would see two possible barriers to an attempt to recapture the use of the SSH trademark.

    The first is that it appears that the trademark holder gave an explicit license to use the term SSH for independent implementations of the software.

    The evidence for this includes (1) the original program documentation and (2) the IP submission to the IETF

    The other track would be dilution. SSH communications did not take steps to protect their trademark. In fact they took positive steps to encourage the use of the name 'ssh' as a generic term to refer to a secure shell. These steps included submitting standards proposals to the IETF that used the name SSH.

    The purpose of the dilution clause in trademark law is expressly to prevent companies from locking competitors out of a market by first encouraging them to use a term, then restricting its use. The problem with the SSH corp behavior is that it appears to fit exactly that pattern.

    That is not to say that the SSH folk were necessarily doing anything calculated in advance. The project started off as an open source hobbyist type hack. Then it became an income for the developer, then a company. Problem with a company is that you have to meet payroll each month, you have responsibilities to your employees and shareholders.

    The lesson for open source projects is that they need to be careful anout the names they use and make sure they establish their own brand independent of the 'open' generic brand.

    These issues were almost certainly raised at the IETF meeting and the IETF hs no shortage of competent legal advice when it needs it. If the SSH people wanted to make a fight of it then they would have to go to the IESG in any case.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/