On Wed, 26 June 2002, "Michael Phipps" wrote > > There is something of a stigma of failure. And if that >were the only issue, I would say that it pretty well >balances with the positive side (i.e. popularity, etc). >The issue is legal. Cloning BeOS and naming ourselves. >*Be.* is a recipie for a lawsuit. Might be. I don't know. But on the other hand, if we refer to the case that rejected Microsoft's claim against "lindows", we can say for the same reasons that Be is a generic name and cannot be registered. So, I'm not a specialist, but I guess a name is unlikely to be the target of a lawsuit just because it contains "be". Read the ruling, it's interesting. Among the reasons for the claim rejection: - (said above) Windows is a generic name; - Window as a programming concept was known before MS started using it in '83; - There are myriads of product names containing *dows, and MS didn't file any claim against one of them. - MS does not sale any product called simply Windows, but only Microsoft Windows and its variants. On top of that, I wonder if filing against a non commercial organization can be done easily. By the way, if we cannot use a name containing be, what about the library libbe.so? Pascal Note that I am not in favor and neither against using a name in *be*. I am only against "religious" decisions without careful study, like (for the most famous that have shown on this list): - No C++ in the holy kernel; - No localization of the holy kernel; - etc...