BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

[Chris Travers]

On 10/16/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> I and others have correctly pointed out that OSI _is_ (still) the
> legitimate body in charge of what "open source" means in the context of
> software.  I and others therefore can and do help get the word out,
> pointing out to occasional abusers -- those labelling non-OSD-compliant
> licensing as "open source" -- that they are misbehaving and can expect
> ongoing unfavourable results until they correct course.

In my lay view, "Open Source" is as defensible a trademark relating to
software licenses as "Windows" is in relation ot graphical user
interfaces.  Chances are extremely good that, at least in the US and
the English Language, that both are too generic to deserve protection.
 Basically "Open Source" has seen widespread generic use which began
before the founding of the OSI.

Secondly as an individual who likes to study historical linguistics, I
am not sure that there is any other basis for deciding what is "open
source" other than trying to protect a brand.  This means essentially
that the only legitimacy the OSI is the respect the community gives to
the organization.  The only power is persuasive, with no legal muscle
behind it.  This is still a concern for my business because even
persuasive power can be effective.  Hence my decision to submit the
PostgreSQL variant for approval.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers