Re: SSH-> Secure Shell renaming is *not* official.

[Theo de Raadt <deraadt%cvs.openbsd.org@localhost>]

Tero Kivinen <kivinen%mail.niksula.cs.hut.fi@localhost> (who is apparently an
employee of ssh.com posting from another place probably so he will
look like an independent thinker) said:

> When Tatu called me on the Friday afternoon and asked would it be ok
> to submit the new version of drafts, that also had been renamed, or
> not to submit them at all (the deadline was in few hours), I didn't
> see any reason why not submit. There hadn't been single person saying
> "No" on the ietf-ssh list, thus I think we had consensus, or most
> people simply dont care. If there has been private discussion
> somewhere, I don't know about it.

I think it is clear that you live in a different universe.

I don't understand where you get this.  Many other vendors of SSH
implementations have been very outspoken against the change, because
SSH is a generic term referring to programs which do the SSH protocol.
Note -- no trademark.  We feel that ssh.com is making invalid claims,
and if ssh.com feels so strongly otherwise, go ahead -- sue us.  If
you don't sue us, you are not defending it.  But if you sue us, you
may expect to have it invalided in court....

Basically, anyone who has a name which includes SSH in it is pretty
much saying "we do SSH protocol".  Looking around, I do not see many
vendors using the term "Secure Shell".  Of course, if a judge decides
that SSH is an acronym for "Secure Shell"...

Here in OpenSSH land, we all very firmy believe that a name change
would needlessly create user community confusion.

BTW, check out the graphs at http://ssh-research.ucs.ualberta.ca/