Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark
ross.mayfield at socialtext.com
Sat Dec 30 06:16:32 UTC 2006
I'm not going to engage in fisking arguments by email. I might have
lost your prior comments in the 100 fold thread that didn't yield that
much substance against the GAP.
I'll point to a link that should help clarify the steps Socialtext has
taken in good faith, and what we did to clarify our license.
I did amend the blog post tonight to provide a link to the license.
We did not submit the SPL which is consistent with OSD -- and instead
sought to address the general problem we all face through the GAP.
And we would never use the OSI Certified mark unless under an OSI
approved. That's the point.
On 12/29/06, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield at socialtext.com):
> > You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of the OSI
> > Certified trademark by this corporation.
> Thank you for saying that.
> > 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.
> Hmm, only one company mentioned (out of 20) actually is implementiong
> GAP: Intalio. Every other one of the other 19 licences I cited,
> including the one your company _uses_, i.e., Socialtext Public Licence
> 1.0.0, seems to me to require a considerably more expansive
> implementation of "attribution" than does the GAP clause.
> > It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
> > approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.
> Do you mean you have submitted _Socialtext Public Licence 1.0.0_ for OSI
> certification? I attempted to search for any such indication, and found
> I respect highly Socialtext's intent in bringing the GAP memo in front
> of the OSI Board, but it is my understanding that your firm uses SPL
> 1.0.0, _not_ MPL + GAP (which Intalio proposes to use), for its
> wiki software. What I said to the Board was, of course, that none of
> the 19 firms referenced in my bullet list had submitted the licences
> they _use_ (and claim in public to be open source) to the Board for
> Socialtext's commendable intent seems noteworthy despite the fact that
> Socialtext substantively ignored the process detailed on
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php by not submitting
> a _licence_ at all, but rather a patch that Socialtext evidently wishes
> the Board to consider as applied to some unspecified fraction of the 58
> existing OSI Certified licence (those with modifiable content).
> > And we clarified this blog post to say more than we were MPL with an
> > addendum, and have had the license available our open source wiki
> > since inception.
> Thank you for doing that, retroactively. Your edit appears to have been
> implemented _within the past hour_, I will note. As you know, I'd
> mentioned the misstatement of fact twice on license-discuss twice, the
> earlier time having been on Dec. 20, i.e., right in front of you, nine
> days ago.
> > Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community, especially
> > a welcoming one.
> Asking the Board to formally deplore the particular patterns of activity
> I cited seems amply merited by the problem those 20 firms have created.
> In fact, it strikes me as extremely mild, in the circumstances. Other
> actions, such as yours in sending and posting the GAP memo, should be
> praised and are quite appreciated.
> Best Regards,
> Rick Moen
ross.mayfield at socialtext.com
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private
More information about the License-discuss