> 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. > 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.
