OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Sat Jan 5 00:08:35 UTC 2008
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> B Galliart [mailto:bgallia at gmail.com]
>> On Dec 31, 2007 2:45 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
>>> Chris Travers writes:
>>> > In essence, the OSI does *not* claim any protection or authority over
>>> > such as "open source."
>>> Just exactly WHAT are you talking about? Are you a complete moron or
>>> are you just mostly a moron? OF COURSE OSI CLAIMS AUTHORITY OVER
>>> TERMS SUCH AS OPEN SOURCE.
>>> Any doubt about it now?
>> As much as Chris Travers' line of reasoning bothers me.
> To defend Chris here (but also to mitigate what he says), I must admit that
> the OSI cannot claim authority on the *terms* "open source, only authority
> on "Open Source" when used as a distinctive trademark, and to allow such
> claim, the OSI would have to register it and define its scope precisely.
First, trademark registration is not required legally. Much more
importantly, OSI doesn't need legal authority over open source. They
have moral authority.
More information about the License-discuss