APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> More specifically, there was application to USPTO for Federal
> _registration_ of such a trademark (technically, service mark), which
> was declined because (I gather) the mark was deemed not distinctive
> enough, and was deemed "merely descriptive", which is bad, as opposed to
> "suggestive", which is good.

You're right.  I should have distinguished between registered and
common-law trademarks.

> Meanwhile, are you actually interested in trademark law, or just using
> it as something to argue about?

Well, I'm definitely interested in it in general.  I was also using it
*to* argue about something else.

>> Of course you can point it out, but strongly worded letters only go so
>> far.
> 
> OSI can point it out, and the rest of us can and will support them
> strongly.

I will support them as well, but ultimately public opinion is a a very
shaky judge.

> However, it's not necessary for
> people to understand precisely what (software) open source is for them
> to understand that OSI originated and defined the concept, and remains
> in charge of it.

If they only understand that OSI is in charge, they will be forced to
check the website for each license.  This isn't reasonable, or likely in
practice.


> Meanwhile, googling for "open source" brings up OSI as the first hit.

This is strong and (I believe) effective branding.

Matt

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061129/17fe94dc/attachment.sig>