APL license - What about the enforced logos?

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Wed Nov 29 20:46:22 UTC 2006

Matthew Flaschen writes:
 > Unfortunately, those who popularized the term Open Source failed to
 > protect it as a trademark;

Uhhhhh, I'd like to correct this misrepresentation of history.  We
tried to protect it as a trademark, however it is too descriptive.  In
order to gain a trademark on something so descriptive, you need an
expensive legal staff.  We don't have that, and so, no trademark for
"Open Source".

 > But they really can't do anything about an objectionable use of the
 > phrase "open source".

Yes, we can.  We can point out to the misuser that they are going to
confuse their customers.  "Open Source" is a well-understood term.
Claiming to have an open source product when you don't will mislead
your customers.  Customers don't like it when you lie to them.

--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | You can do any damn thing
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | you want, as long as you
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | don't expect somebody else
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | to pick up the pieces.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list