On 09/01/17 20:11, Richard Kenner wrote:
I suppose that would be true if you refer to MISRA in the messages.
If you don't then you're not using the trademark.
The issue isn't the messages. but how you describe what you've done
in, say, documentation or ChangeLog entries. If you claim, in any
way, that you're checking for "MISRA compatibility", you violate the
trademark.
It does not look like that is a problem for MISRA, from what I saw on
their forum. But it would make sense to check on the MISRA forums
before making a checker.
But still, I'm back to my previous comment. People who try to
extract license fees for stuff like this should just be rejected.
It's bad enough we have ISO doing this; we should not put up with
random others trying to do the same.
The politics of IP are off-topic here, but I believe that it's not just a
license fee, but that there's also some (mild, but nonzero) verification
that you are actually doing checking against those rules.
That also does not appear to be a problem - MISRA does not endorse or
recommend any particular tools, and say it is up to the user to check
that they are appropriate for the job. But again, it would make sense
to check.
