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

[Rod Dixon]

In my opinion, this would never work as a certification mark.  You  
cannot control the signal of the text "open source" by setting  
standards for how others may use it.  OSI has the better idea by  
going beyond the generic text of "open source" for a service/trade mark.

Rod Dixon

On Jan 5, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> In addition, a descriptive mark can become distinctive by achieving
>> secondary meaning. If today customers associated the phrase "open
>> source" with OSI's definition, then the phrase would have secondary
>> meaning and can be registered as a trademark today.
>
> It seems realistically that they don't currently.  However, this is
> another incentive (besides simply protecting the integrity of the  
> term),
> for OSI to speak out loudly and frequently about what is and isn't  
> open
> source.
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>
>