OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")

[Matthew Flaschen]

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> So this is what you or others are referring to when you speak about "moral
> rights". 

I have never used the term moral rights in this context.

> Note that "moral rights" have a legal definition in some countries
> (possibly still not in US, but true in Europe),

Notwithstanding Berne, I don't believe the U.S. has any plan to
implement moral rights, so I don't know what you mean by "still".

> Moral rights in US are still very weakly defined because they are quite new
> and not really tested in courts for US in US cases with a strong
> jurisprudence,

Weakly defined?  There is quite deliberately no law explicitly granting
moral rights.

> If OSI wants now to defend its position under the assumption of existence of
> moral rights, this is its own position,

No one has suggested this except you.  It is /your/ position, not OSI's.

> if they can do that, they will be in a much stronger position than OSI if they want to
> compel OSI of stating what is or is not "open source".

No one else has, or could gain, any legal standing to restrict OSI's use
of the term "open source".

> Anyway, the subject is already so hot and well known in lots of countries
> that I have doubt that any country will ever accept now the registration of
> "open source" as a trademark, due to the huge history of prior use (or prior
> art),

What would be some examples of this "huge history" prior to OSI?

> and really a lot of groups and companies throughout the world that are
> monitoring any attempt by anyone to register it for its exclusive use.

Can you give an example of such a group with active monitoring?

Matt Flaschen