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

Michael Bernstein webmaven at cox.net
Thu Jan 4 04:52:36 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:45 -0500, DShofi at atmi.com wrote:
> 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. 

My point was that the OSI does not need a property interest (exclusive
or otherwise) in the term 'open source' to be able to say, loudly and
clearly "That's not open source!" any more than environmental
organizations need a trademark on the phrase 'environmentally friendly'.

Whether the OSI (as an organization) will actually exercise the moral
authority it has in this matter is a matter of policy. But it clearly
CAN, and in my opinion it SHOULD.

- Michael R. Bernstein

More information about the License-discuss mailing list