linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Nomenclature: "MIPS32", "MIPS64"

To: kevink@mips.com (Kevin D. Kissell)
Subject: Re: Nomenclature: "MIPS32", "MIPS64"
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:35:54 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: ralf@oss.sgi.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <00a201bf3fed$df8c82f0$0ceca8c0@satanas.mips.com> from "Kevin D. Kissell" at Dec 6, 99 02:29:06 pm
Sender: owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com
> The problems are twofold.  First, while it is of course possible to create
> a kernel that will run on both MIPS64 and pre-MIPS64 MIPS-III and
> MIPS-IV CPUs, it is also possible to create a MIPS64 kernel that
> would not necessarily run on R10000s and vice versa.  Secondly,
> we are referring to two distinct things that ought to be distinguished
> at the source and documentation level.   We need a name for something 
> that is 64-bit-MIPS but not necessarily tied up with any particular CPU 
> and a distinct name for something that is compatible with a particular 
> CPU type.  "MIPS32" and "MIPS64" are already trademarked
> by MIPS to describe the CPUs, so we need another name for the 
> generic OS infrastructure for 64-bit MIPS registers/addresses.

I would suggest that until someone from MIPS legal specifically raises an issue
you don't worry about it. With the sparc people they were quite happy with
Linux/sparc - which denotes Linux for sparc systems (they objected to 
sparclinux as that implied it was their product). In fact given the "/" is
'for' then I don't think there is even a valid trademark issue to be raised.

Its also not in MIPS interest to cause trouble. Its a product for their
system. If they started being silly then everyones lawyers would be advising
them to pull their "xyz product for mips" as a legal precaution.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>