[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[DShofi at atmi.com]

Michael wrote:

On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:10 -0500, DShofi at atmi.com wrote:
>> From there, it is the market that will drive good behavior with regard
>> to use of the term (as opposed to the certification mark). 

>Well, I suppose this is a policy issue for the OSI. Personally, I'm
>skeptical of this approach. Are you familiar with the term
>'greenwashing'?

>It seems to me that even though the OSI has no property interest in the
>term 'open source', The OSI does have a moral interest and authority,
>and there is definitely plenty of room for the OSI to counter, loudly
>and clearly, attempts at corporate 'openwashing'. No other organization
>can currently fill this role.

I thought that I made myself clear.  I do not disagree with the OSI's 
vital role as moral authority, consultant, certification mark provider, 
etc. as Michael references above.  However, I do not recommend that anyone 
fool themselves into thinking that the OSI or anyone else has any 
proprietary right to "open source" as a textual term so as to require 
approval before use thereof.  That is my sole point.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070103/41340c7c/attachment.html>