Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?

[Rod Dixon]

I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor
Y is not authorized to use the mark, vendor Y must follow that
determination or risk infringing the mark. At this point, your question is
really more straightforward than the one you posed, I think. You want to
know: whether developer/vendor/whomever is authorized to use the mark.

Rod


On Fri, 7 May 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote:
>
> > Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > > Where does it say that "OSI certified" mark cannot be used with a BSD
> > > license text titled "Foo Open License v1.2"?
> >
> > I suppose that might be:
> > "Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
> > license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and is against the law."
> > Found at:
> > http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php
>
> To interpret the above, one needs to know whether OSI approves the
> license text, the license title, or a combination of both (i.e., the
> core question you stripped).
>
> Alex.
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>
>
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3