Mind you, from the reading of the SSH.com documentation, they would argue that the protocol is the "Secure Shell protocol" even though they are listed as the authors of the IETF drafts which specify "SSH Protocol"
I dunno exactly how trademarks work, but I suspect that they can still hold the trademark on the "SSH" protocol, and the IETF WG would have to refer to it as the "Secure Shell" or "SecSH" protocol.
Alternatively, they may not mind people who conform to the protocol calling it the SSH protocol, since that's what it is. That was even the licensing agreement on the code on which OpenSSH was built.
Either way, I don't think they can stop people who conform to their protocol calling it the SSH(R) protocol.
Additionally, SSH Communications Security 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 term "ssh" as a command name with proper attribution. It is the use of the ssh® trademark in product names or in ways otherwise likely to cause confusion and infringe the ssh® trademark that the company desires to prevent.
So they don't need to rename the command, just the product name.
I for one wish Debian had called the package openssh, since I for ages thought the ssh from ssh.com was that good, until I tried ssh-socks and discovered the difference.
I'm not totally convinced that OpenSSH infringes the trademark of SSH, since it is generally accepted that OpenXXX is a seperate, Open Source version of XXX (Specifically Legal over here in Oz) (eg OpenBSD, OpenDOS)
But that's generally accepted amongst the sort of people who read Slashdot. Even so, it seems obvious that it's not the same thing, so I worry about people who send OpenSSH problems to SSH.com.
In short, change the project name (Since the protocol's SecSH) and just relax a bit.
ICQ (At least for Win32) is a real b*tch for SOCKS 5. I tried both the free NT socks5 from nec and Wingate, and it's definately a problem in the way ICQ handles the SOCKS. It worked fine if I used a UDP mapped port. I found I toggled settings in the NT networking until it worked...
BTW, I used both ICQ's socks5 handling and the Hummingbird AutoSocks winsock replacement with the same results, so I dunno what it is about ICQ. They probably break one of the "don't bind before connect" rules under some circumstances)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I see what you mean.
Mind you, from the reading of the SSH.com documentation, they would argue that the protocol is the "Secure Shell protocol" even though they are listed as the authors of the IETF drafts which specify "SSH Protocol"
I dunno exactly how trademarks work, but I suspect that they can still hold the trademark on the "SSH" protocol, and the IETF WG would have to refer to it as the "Secure Shell" or "SecSH" protocol.
Alternatively, they may not mind people who conform to the protocol calling it the SSH protocol, since that's what it is. That was even the licensing agreement on the code on which OpenSSH was built.
Either way, I don't think they can stop people who conform to their protocol calling it the SSH(R) protocol.
====================
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
From http://www.ssh.com/legal/trademarks/
So they don't need to rename the command, just the product name.
I for one wish Debian had called the package openssh, since I for ages thought the ssh from ssh.com was that good, until I tried ssh-socks and discovered the difference.
I'm not totally convinced that OpenSSH infringes the trademark of SSH, since it is generally accepted that OpenXXX is a seperate, Open Source version of XXX (Specifically Legal over here in Oz) (eg OpenBSD, OpenDOS)
But that's generally accepted amongst the sort of people who read Slashdot. Even so, it seems obvious that it's not the same thing, so I worry about people who send OpenSSH problems to SSH.com.
In short, change the project name (Since the protocol's SecSH) and just relax a bit.
====================
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
You'll prolly find they can't sell the product to end users because that would require them to give away source code which they're not allowed to do.
If you're a system integrator, you probably have to sign an NDA which says you will only compile the code and release binary versions.
====================
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
ICQ (At least for Win32) is a real b*tch for SOCKS 5. I tried both the free NT socks5 from nec and Wingate, and it's definately a problem in the way ICQ handles the SOCKS. It worked fine if I used a UDP mapped port. I found I toggled settings in the NT networking until it worked...
BTW, I used both ICQ's socks5 handling and the Hummingbird AutoSocks winsock replacement with the same results, so I dunno what it is about ICQ. They probably break one of the "don't bind before connect" rules under some circumstances)