At 2001-04-17 08:13 +0200, Paul Reeves <paul@...> wrote:

> > origin of Firebird is therefore worth to be mentioned. There is a
> > simple and even somewhat natural relationship between InterBase and
> > Firebird and it's important to communicate this, rather than hide it.
> >
>
>Let me jump in here. Whatever the politics are, whatever our feelings, we
>cannot
>blithely mention the name InterBase in the same sentence as Firebird without
>breaking the IPL. It states very clearly that derivative works must not be
>promoted by the use of the registered trademark 'InterBase'.
>
>There is nothing much to stop anyone saying there is a connection, but when we

It seems to me that everything hinges on the definition of the word
'promoted'. It could be argued that any mention of the word 'InterBase'
in relation to the Firebird product is "promoting" a derivative work using
the registered trademark 'InterBase'. (This assumes, of course, that mentioning
'Firebird' in relation to 'InterBase' isn't actually promoting InterBase, as
opposed to promoting Firebird -- i.e., that mentioning 'InterBase' is actually
detrimental to Firebird, which should not be "tainted" by the mention of an
"inferior"
product.) In that case, and making the said assumption, there is a whole lot
standing in the way of even mentioning a connection (should Borland's lawyers
decide to get aggressive).

Of course, perhaps the legal beagles have some "accepted" definition of
"promote"
in this context, but that seems unlikely.

>come to arrange for Firebird to be distributed on a Linux distro, for example,
>we cannot make this obvious connection. Otherwise Borland's lawyers will be
>writing to the likes of RedHat etc, forcing them to withdraw the CD's they
>have
>pressed (at the very least).

That could be true. Borland would, of course, have to weigh up the damage
to its
reputation and standing with the open source community, which it is trying
to woo.


David Trudgett