[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
craig.mu at gmail.com
Fri Jan 5 00:22:06 UTC 2007
Russ Nelson wrote:
> >From: Craig Muth <craig.mu at gmail.com>
> >If we're talking about projects whose source is open - for
> >downloading, modifying, redistributing, and selling - and assuming
> >they get their license to reasonably conform to the OSD, who are
> >we to say it's not open source?
> We are the Open Source Initiative. We created the term, we created
> the goodwill behind the term, and it is very much our job to say what
> is and what is not Open Source.
I must confess to some ignorance in this area. I'd thought the term
predated the OSI. Much of the verbage on opensource.org (such as the
'Conformance to the OSD box on the left of
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php) seems to emphasize the OSD
and the 'OSI Certified' mark rather than the use of the term 'open
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software :
> Perens attempted to register "open source" as a service mark for the
> OSI, but that attempt was impractical by trademark standards.
Does anyone know the details of why this attempt failed?
I should say that I do very much agree with the sentiment that the OSI
is doing a great service by maintaining and guarding the OSD, and
encouraging public discussion about it.
More information about the License-discuss