BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Philippe Verdy (verdy_p at wanadoo.fr):

> I fully meet you on your arguments. As long as "open source" remains an
> unprotected expression, and the OSI has no legal exclusive right on it, it's
> illusory to propagate false information about those that use it lawfully
> even if they don't have the OSI approval.

There has been no "false information" -- nor have you cited any, come to
think of it, Philippe.

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.

You seem to claim that such activity is improper unless OSI can
demonstrate that it is "the legal owner of the expression".  No, sir.
This is, to be blunt, absolutely and completely false -- entirely
aside from the quoted phrase (as pointed out previously) being
meaningless and apparently reflecting a poor understanding on your part
of what trademark rights actually are.

> As far as I know, this expression is not a trademark....

If so, irrelevant.


> The FLOSS community...

...has excellent dental hygeine?  (What a revolting neologism.)