[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] Open Source trademark(was: Text of Sen. Hollings' revised SSSCA,now called the CBDTPA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] Open Source trademark(was: Text of Sen. Hollings' revised SSSCA,now called the CBDTPA
- From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:12:40 -0500
- In-reply-to: <200203221853.MAA14895@godzilla.monsters.org>
- References: <200203221853.MAA14895@godzilla.monsters.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
At 12:53 PM -0600 3/22/02, Stephen L. Johnson wrote:
> > At 01:03 PM 3/22/2002 -0500, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
>> >Isn't "open source" trademarked by the OSI? Any "open source"
>> >implementation would have to be approved by the Open Source Initiative.
>> It appears to be a dead mark, but there are about ten live marks which
>> include "open source." Perhaps the most interesting is the one owned by VA
>> Software, formerly VA Linux, by virtue of acquiring Andover.net, which,
>> under the aegis of Open Source Development Network (r), has a little
>> something to do with /. and other equally obscure sites.
>SlashDot obscure? That's almost an oxymoron. :)
>"Open Source" and open source are two different things. "Open Source" an
>umbrella description of numerous Software Licenses that meet OSI's standards.
>The "Open Source" licenses are designed, in essence, to promote access to a
>programs source code. The (in)famous GNU Progarm Licence (GPL) is one of these
>licenses along with the Mozilla Program License (MPL), the Perl Artistic
>License and other.
>An OSI doesn't approve "open source" implementations. They only say whether
>the licenses would meet the standards of "Open Source" or not. I could create
>a program and openly release the code to anyone except for James Tyre (he
>can't use it ;) My souce is open, but my license wouldn't be "Open Source".
>Stephen L Johnson <email@example.com>
The distinction you make is correct, but it is not legally specified
by saying "Open Source." That is not a trade mark. The trademarked
expression for what you mean is "OSI Certified Open Source." Here is
what it says on the OSI web site
>We think the Open Source Definition captures what the great majority
>of the software community originally meant, and still mean, by the
>term "Open Source". However, the term has become widely used and its
>meaning has lost some precision. The OSI Certified mark is OSI's way
>of certifying that the license under which the software is
>distributed conforms to the OSD; the generic term "Open Source"
>cannot provide that assurance, but we still encourage use of the
>term "Open Source" to mean conformance to the OSD. For information
>about the OSI Certified mark, and for a list of licenses that OSI
>has approved as conforming to the OSD, see the OSD Certification