[OT] Fee-based certification of open source, was Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Chris Travers]

On 10/11/07, Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I seriously object to making a business out of this.


I have no problem with people making a business out of this provided that it
doesn't preclude small community projects.

Suppose you have the opensource-approval.com, The Open Source Certification
Corporation (OSCC).  Suppose the OSCC merely owns the trademark "OSCC
Certified Open Source" and they provide paid reviews to certify that
software sold is accurately marketed as open source.

Licenses not
> OSI-approved even if OSD-compliant will not be allowed to be called
> "open source" and the process of making your license OSI-approved
> carries a fee.


IANAL, but I am going to disagree with a number of people here and say that
I don't think that the OSI even has a defensible trademark on the term "open
source" as applied to computer software.  The term has been used long before
the OSI was founded both commerically and noncommerically and therefore is
arguably generic.

Secondly, if I understand trademark law correctly, unauthorized use of a
trademark dilutes its effect.  I suspect it is arguably too late to start
trying to enforce the trademark now.

Which is probably why "OSI Approved" is the only trademark that there is any
real effort at maintaining.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

USD 50 is INR 2000, Mr Terekhov -- that's not a small sum
> for me, Mr Terekhov if I want to get my license OSI-approved. Often
> people writing OSS are enthusiasts and not necessary professional
> programmers who earn a lot.
>
> Shriramana Sharma.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071011/46ce2312/attachment.html>