Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Sat Dec 30 05:57:33 UTC 2006
Ross Mayfield wrote:
> You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of the OSI
> Certified trademark by this corporation.
> However, ONLY ONE company that employs a provision similar to the
> Generic Attribution Provision has breached this trust. I believe you
> have provided another reason for the GAP to be minded by OSI.
As per my previous message, Socialtext is also still breaching the trust
by claiming their license is OSI-compliant. You also falsely claim to
use the MPL on sourceforge, when in fact your license is the Socialtext
Public License, which is not equivalent or compliant. I don't believe
OSI has to more attention to licenses that are falsely implied (or
outright stated) to be OSI-approved. That would reward those who ignore
their process, and sometimes the law.
> It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
> approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.
You have not applied for approval of your license with Exhibit B, or the
exhibit alone. It is respectable that you have submitted GAP, but that
is not equivalent to Exhibit B.
> Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community, especially
> a welcoming one.
OSI is not meant to welcome licenses or products that don't comply with
the OSD, no matter whether they claim to.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the License-discuss