> 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.