Use of "open source"

Rick Moen rick at
Thu Jan 4 08:44:02 UTC 2007

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at

> Yes, I really shouldn't mix those up.  Part of it is that the OSI site
> says, "Unfortunately, the term "open source" itself is subject to
> misuse, and because it's descriptive, it can't be protected as a
> trademark (which would have been our first choice)."
> ( Still, I don't
> think OSI is really prepared to litigate over the "open source" term
> itself.

Well said, and I have to admit that I was stretching the point:  OSI
hasn't acted, in general, in ways trademark holders should concerning
the term "open source" if it were to seriously contemplate enforcing
that as a commercial mark under trademark law.  However, that of course
is entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy of OSI's custody.

Cheers,              "By reading this sentence, you agree to be bound by the 
Rick Moen             terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4, or, at your 
rick at   option, any later version."  -- Seth David Schoen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list