For Approval: Microsoft Public License
Philippe Verdy
verdy_p at wanadoo.fr
Wed Oct 10 05:06:14 UTC 2007
B Galliart [mailto:bgallia at gmail.com] wrote:
> * How Microsoft is already using (or abusing) the term "Open Source"
I don't think that Microsoft abuses the terms, given that OSI is not a
exclusive legitimate owner of the terms.
What matters is how it will use the terms in the future, when there will be
assumptions that the terms are referring to the OSI compliance rules given
that it will have OSI-approved licences referring ALSO to the same terms...
But even in that case, Microsoft is not required to limit its usage for
softwares covered by licenses not approved by OSI. The terms were used and
defined more broadly before OSI started its job of making a compliance
program to give a stricter definition (but no way to enforce it legally).
So the question is not about the usage of the terms, but about the reference
to the OSI approval of the licence (meaning that a "OSI-compliant" logo
could be useful, and enforceable, exactly like another exclusive trademark,
or protected logo, such as the "Designed for Windows" logo which gives to
consumers the warranty of compliance to Microsoft rules for compatibility,
and is contractual between the maker of the program or hardware and the
consumer).
Regarding the terms "open source", I've not seen any proof that OSI is an
exclusive owner of them. This means that asserting compliance to these terms
is not equivalent to assorting compliance to OSI rules governing the
approved licences. So, before discussing if Microsoft "abuses" the terms,
can someone point where such abuse is demonstrable? Here I want a proof of
registration of "Open Source" as an exclusive trademark owned by OSI.
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list