OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers

munchola sends us word that the Open Source Initiative is getting tough on any vendors who claim to be open source despite not actually using a license approved by the OSI. In his blog post, OSI president Michael Tiemann writes: "Enough is enough. Open Source has grown up. Now it is time for us to stand up. I believe that when we do, the vendors who ignore our norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label."

Comments

Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[AusIV]

Is "Open Source" a registered trademark? If not, I don't think the OSI gets to decide which licenses are open source and which aren't.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[morgan_greywolf]

Yes, but interestingly enough, not by OSI. OSI owns Open Source Initiative Approved License mark and the 'OSI certified' mark.

IANAL, but I don't think OSI has a leg to stand on here.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

The trademark was applied for years ago, and then OSI abandoned it on, in my opinion, really bad legal advice (sorry, Larry, but that's how I call it). It's still a common-law mark. Maybe they should try to re-register.

Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[steveaitken]

Looks to me like they should approach this by making an 'osi approved' sticker to stamp the software, rather than saying that 'open source' is the 'osi approved' sticker. I can understand their concern - as people tend to label open source as 'good' where there may be a clause in something that is claiming to be open which charges you loads of money..

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[morgan_greywolf]

Unfortunately, registration gives almost automatic 'evidence of first use'. And with someone else registering it (for maybe a different, but still-related purpose), it looks very bad in court. Judges and juries don't know anything about the history of the term 'open source,' and when they have a bunch of paperwork in front of them saying someone else owns 'open source', and with other people using the term generically without OSI defending the mark, well...it looks bad. In the U.S., failure to defend a mark means you lose it.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[CaptainPatent]

I agree that OSI has very little ground to stand upon at this point, but it seems they are under the false advertising aspect which someone should stand up for. While they have a very strict definition of open source, there has been code labeled "open source" that I have wanted to get my grubby little paws on in the past and after an exhaustive search through the vendors site first then the internet in general have found no hits. Some of these solutions I began using strictly because they were open source and I knew if I had some minor problem or difference of preference with the software I may be able to go through and see what can be changed.

OSI may be wrong to assume they can push around vendors to adapt to a very strict sense of "open source" but they're just as wrong as vendors trying to edge out some more sales by misleadingly labeling their software "open source."

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the current registration for Open Source. It has no relation to software, so I do not think an existing registration in this case should have any bearing. Trademarks are such a convoluted device that the USPTO requires all Trademark examiners to be lawyers.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[BVis]

It seems to me (and IANAL, or, for that matter, an open source contributor) that the open source licensing model exists to specify the terms under which a given intellectual property may be used. If I write some code and make it publicly available, it's still automatically subject to copyright law unless I specify another licensing model. If someone takes that code and uses it without my permission, I have legal standing to sue based on copyright infringement, despite the fact that I made it very easy to obtain.

If I release it under an alternative license, then I'm saying "these are the terms under which you may use my intellectual property", and you are bound to obey the terms that I've laid out (attribution, contribution of changes, and so forth.) If I find that someone is using this code in violation of these terms, I have grounds to sue under the terms of the license.

If I'm understanding this right, the OSI is helping the IP owners (and they DO retain ownership) pursue legal action based on the license violations. Why all the hate? If someone is profiting from the code I've generated without following the rules, IMHO it's the same as if I copy a DVD and sell it on the street (both are violations of the licensing agreement; in the DVD's case, normal copyright law applies, as they haven't specified a different license in most cases.) Hate them as you might (and I deplore their tactics, it seems like once you start invading someone's privacy you should forfeit the right to redress under copyright law) the RIAA and MPAA have legal legs to stand on, respectively.

I'm sure someone will correct me on a nuance or two (even if I've gotten said nuance right) but that's my take. People who violate licensing for profit should be punished appropriately. (I'm drawing a distincion here; if I copy a DVD for my own purposes or give a copy to my friend for no financial gain, then the MPAA can kiss my ass; however, technically, it is a copyright violation and they're within their rights to pursue legal remedy.)

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

You are correct. The current registration would not interfere with a registration for a certification mark for software licensing.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

If I'm understanding this right, the OSI is helping the IP owners (and they DO retain ownership) pursue legal action based on the license violations.

This has nothing to do with that. FSF does help folks with that, if they ask.

This is about software with licensing that does not conform to the Open Source Definition, but claims to be Open Source. I think you can find the Open Source Definition on OSI's web site.

Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[iminplaya]

Well, maybe they can sidestep the whole lawyer/court thing by simply putting up a list of those that don't "comply" that we all can refer to. If the community is all it's cracked up to be, then it can use its economic clout to effect a change of behavior. No lawyers, no judges, just money...the way nature intended.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[grylnsmn]

Then the solution here is fairly simple. Reapply for the trademark as it relates to software.

Otherwise, they have no real basis to insist that anyone stop using the term "Open Source". Just because the OSI has published a definition of "Open Source" doesn't mean that it is the only possible definition, nor that they are the only ones who get to decide what is or isn't "Open Source".

The FSF has published various forms of a definition for "Free Software" (although not specifically calling them "definitions"), the most famous of which is emphasizing "Free as in speech", but that doesn't mean that they get to decide who can use the term "Free Software". Because there are so many definitions of "free" and "open", there is really a lot of wiggle room for what you can call each one.

If you can't get the trademark on "Open Source", then the other solution is simple. Rather than complaining that they use the term "Open Source", because they don't meet your definition of the term, phrase it as "Their license is not OSI certified". That changes the tone from "cracking down" on using ther term "Open Source", back to the real important focus: the OSI definition of "Open Source".

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Russ Nelson]

In hindsight, you are correct. We were wrong to listen to Larry's advice in this regard.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

OSI may be wrong to assume they can push around vendors to adapt to a very strict sense of "open source"

Well, if we don't have a strict definition, think of what would happen to you. Right now, you can use any software that is Open Source. As a just plain user, you don't need to read the license, you don't need to consent, you know that you can use it for any purpose because the Open Source Definition guarantees that. Now, if we loosen up what we call "Open Source", about the first thing that will happen is that it will be applied to "Educational Use Only" software. And one day you will be using that stuff without reading the license, and you'll get sued. Or we'll have Badgeware, and one day you will have a legal requirement to display 100 different logos on your web pages for all of that badgeware that it's built upon, and lawyers will get after you because your web site doesn't display the "Booted with LILO" icon and the "Preprocessed with M4" icon. Well, not those exact programs but you know what I mean.

So, the bottom line is that the strict form of the Open Source brand has value to you. Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

Thank you. Can you fix it now?

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[BVis]

I stand corrected. My bad.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Russ Nelson]

One always hopes so, but the misunderstand of people here is rather depressing. It's as if your hard work and our hard work in promoting Open Source has vanished. We're like the scaffolding that created the arch. People look at the arch and say "Oh, how beautiful" and forget that somebody had to work hard to create it.

Excepting, of course, that the analogy breaks down because people are trying to disassemble the arch and take it home, only without the scaffolding, there's no way to put it back together again. Break "Open Source" and you'll let the proprietary software vendors call ANYTHING open source.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, I suggest you not get too depressed about what you are reading here, because you have astroturfing from the badgeware camp, and the generally anti-Free-Software camp, and on top of that just plain ignorance. Remember that no age field is given on Slashdot postings, and this is not the community site we had in the 90's - it was morphed to a "Geek Culture" site to make more money by the admission of its own editors.

There are lots of folks who appreciate what we have done and understand it a hell of a lot better than you are seeing here. They are in government, and industry, and everywhere. I do more public speaking than you (I'm in Europe for that at the moment) and see a lot more of them face-to-face.

Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Rycross]

Hey Mr. Perens, I don't mean to pick on you but I've seen lots of claims of astroturfing on Slashdot recently, and I'd like to say that, just because someone's views and opinions differ from your own doesn't make it astroturfing. Sometimes people just believe certain things:

Astroturfing is a term for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior. Hence the reference to AstroTurf (artificial grass) is a metaphor to indicate fake grassroots support.

From the wikipedia article.

Its been insinuated that I was an astroturfer when I just held a certain point of view. I bring this up because accusing people of astroturfing is counter-productive. I am willing to, and have, change my opinions in the face of a good argument, but being accused of being an astroturfer makes me far less likely to listen to your point of view.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[dintech]

I know, why don't we call it Shared Source...

*Ducks*

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Score Whore]

You sound like a bible thumper who tries to tell potential believers that the only way to talk to god is through the preacher and the only way to be saved is to give the preacher money. Free software is about software, not about rent seekers.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[augustz]

Also sad to see the Open Source mark go, I always that it nice and elegant, as Free Software was obviously out, we simply created a new name for things, and could define it.

The FairTrade commmunity has been very successful following this approach. A proper trusted description can be very powerful these days with so much "bogus" stuff out there. Once trusted a mark means a lot to people.

I notice there are a ton of commercial marks using Open Source as part of their name, many in overlapping fields. It would be fantastic if it could be re-registered, but I think challenging with the proliferation of uncontested open source marks to enforce as cleanly.

But a great idea at the time, and glad to hear some effort will be made to work with "Open Source" vendors who aren't.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

Well, I wasn't accusing you. I am convinced that you really hold your opinion. But I am also convinced that there are real astroturfers out there. Even my own employer once in a while has a "Please put digg points on this" message go out to its "everyone" list. And I have heard from PR agencies who sell the fact that they can put multiple comments on Slashdot.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[augustz]

BTW: We is used loosely as I didn't have anything to do with things :)

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[nomadic]

Unfortunately, registration gives almost automatic 'evidence of first use'. And with someone else registering it (for maybe a different, but still-related purpose), it looks very bad in court.

I don't think it would make much of a difference, since the other trademarks have nothing to do with software. However, it definitely would be a problem that OSI didn't use the term first even when applied to software development.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Rycross]

Sorry, I didn't mean to claim that you were accusing anyone in particular. It simply concerns me that I hear the terms "shill" and "astroturfer" thrown around so easily recently. I personally believe that its harmful to discussion (Ad hominem and all).

That being said, I had no idea that the whole astroturfing industry was so large. I knew it existed, but I guess I didn't really comprehend its scope.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[soulhuntre]

So, the bottom line is that the strict form of the Open Source brand has value to you.

No offense... but it doesn't. There is now ay I woudl rely on that little branding as the basis for a legal decision on what I could, or could not, use that code for. Certainly not as long as the GPL counts as "Open Source" and carries with it so many restrictions and "gotchas" about how I can use the code. This will get worse with the GPL3.

The simple reality is that the decision to use, or not use, "open source" code is a complex legal one, and no sticker or "approved by" will change that... especially given the types of licenses that currently count.

Additionally... "open source" is a common term that has common, obvious meanigns aside from yours IN YOUR FIELD. Trying to enforce a trademark on it would be silly and fairly obnoxious.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[quentin_quayle]

"Open source" is a generic term and as such not a proper object of trademark protection (see my other post below). But this does not mean it can be used for any random meaning. It just means it doesn't have to be used for your specific definition in particular. If something is advertised with a false description, this is actionable under law other than trademark law, such as consumer protection, fraud and contract law (and maybe some laws that ought to exist but don't). You don't need a trademark for this purpose. Trademarks are intended to designate brand names within a generic category. You don't get to monopolize the generic description for this purpose, but you don't need to in order to assure the public that the product fits the generic description.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[DavidSev]

OSI Certified:
http://opensource.berlios.de/docs/certification_ma rk.php

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody please cue the violins.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[exiquio]

OSI seems to be a distraction from real issues. Whatever happened to Free Software and its supporters ?

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Watts Martin]

While I don't want to speak for Mr. Perens, the problem with relying on "generic description" in this case is that there's room between specific definition in particular and random meaning. If I create a license for my software that's 'more or less' open source -- say, with an advertising clause like the original BSD license -- it'd be very easy to say I violated trademark were there an "open source" trademark that had specific criteria.

Proving that I'm committing fraud by calling it "open source" is an awfully tall order, however. I've told you what my license is; just because you don't think it's open enough doesn't mean I've defrauded you. How about if I give you the source but the license precludes anyone but my company from distributing binaries? How about if I make a closed-source text editor but allow "open source" extensions by defining an API, or just letting you call shell scripts: can I advertise that as "supports open source extensions?" I'm hardly breaking contract law in any of those circumstances.

If "open source" is a generic term, then it's going to be used generically: I give you the source, so hey, I'm being open. I can't define open source as "not giving you the source," but I may well be able to use it in contexts that have restrictions that don't meet any OSI-approved standard.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL doesn't restrict your use of the code -- just redistribution of it.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[rm999]

Kind of ironic that an organization that is all about openness and freedom is trying to restrict a common phrase that it doesn't even have legal control over.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[eihab]

How about an addendum to the words "Open Source", maybe "OSI Approved Open Source Software" and possibly a seal.

This way companies or individuals that are interested in using open source software can ask the vendor "Is your 'Open Source' software OSI Approved?", If they get a yes and they're using a license that's incompatible with OSI, you can hunt them down and make them "pay" for their deception.

So, instead of promoting the words "Open Source", maybe promote OSI?

*Warning: Weak web programmer analogy coming up*
It'll make you kind of like the W3C, anyone can come up with a DTD and say their markup is valid, but it's not the same thing as saying W3C Valid (x)HTML v.xx.

I'm pretty sure you can get a trademark/copywhatsoever (IANAL) on "OSI Approved OSS", promote that as what "true/standardized" Open Source software is, and then you can have the legal ground to go after deceitful entities.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[xenocide2]

So is there anything to be done about Open Source works that are not software, and do not have any sense of Source to them at all?

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I don't think OSI has a leg to stand on here.

They have two. And they're bionic. And Oscar Goldman is sending them your way.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Bruce Perens]

So is there anything to be done about Open Source works that are not software, and do not have any sense of Source to them at all?

Probably the nice thing is for us to not be Intel, which went after a yoga studio called "Yoga Inside" when Intel had "Intel Inside". If it's not software or about software, it's not our problem. Then again, these days when you have computer fabrication and field-programmable logic arrays, hardware is sometimes made of something that looks very much like software. So, maybe policy making would take more than one paragraph I'm writing while sleepy tonight.

It's past midnight in Norway. I started posting on this topic in London. Another day for the public speaker :-)

Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[falconwolf]

the OSI is helping the IP owners (and they DO retain ownership) pursue legal action based on the license violations. Why all the hate?

What you say is true if you use someone else's code but if you entirely use your own code it's different. Writing all the code myself, if I creats a graphics program to revival Photoshop and release the source code but my license bars anyone one else from modifiying it, it is still open source. The OSI however is saying that unless your program license is the same as their's it not open source. The BSD license allows this I believe so it's not open source according to the OSI. If I'm right the BSD license even allows me to take someone else's BSD source code, modify it, then close the code as long as I include or credit all of the previous contributors to the code.

Falcon

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[the_womble]

It simply concerns me that I hear the terms "shill" and "astroturfer" thrown around so easily recently. I personally believe that its harmful to discussion (Ad hominem and all).

The astroturfers also harm the discussion. They spread FUD and biased views, and also, as a result, distract people from real discussions. The latter effect is like a subtle troll.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[Rycross]

Everyone has a biased view, and if they're spreading FUD then that can be countered by facts. The claims of astroturfing are, by large, used to avoid responding to peoples' arguments. About half the time someone is accused of astroturfing, I find that they actually have good arguments, and the accuser can't seem to frame a halfway decent argument.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[gophur]

Branding is the heart of the issue as Bruce alludes. Trying to blanket the "community" with an "our way or no way" solution won't work, as clearly pointed out by the "community". The best bet is for OSI to market themselves as an authority of community. Just like the "Real Seal" for dairy products. http://www.innovatewithdairy.com/NR/rdonlyres/62E4 9B3F-C58B-481B-A7C0-CBB82C78EC8D/0/DMI5550RealSeal _Jan11_v2.pdf The "Real Seam (R)" has a couple of things going for it that OSI doesn't. First, it is based on a Code of Federal Regulations standard and second its merits for use are 4 one sentence bullet points that are easily understood and not 10 paragraphs of legalese. Another branding example that is more recent and likely more relevant would be "organic". Just because its software doesn't mean that the branding issue is any different. A "community" organization will have a tough time regulating an industry without some sort of Federal guidelines, especially in a free and open community.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[xenocide2]

Well, I'm referring more to "Open Source Politics", "Open Source Journalism," or "Open Source Photography" where it's not about software, but very much wants to ride on the Open Source Software boat. It just presses a silly personal button to see the liberal use of the phrase Open Source to denote a certain concept of sharing. Open source isn't just about being able to modify and distribute changes, it's about having access at the same level as the authors to the preferred medium of change, hence the term Source.

It's been a lot better now, that Creative Commons has stepped up to codify a range of intellectual properties not explicitly software. So probably rather than beating someone over the head for Open Source Government, an encouraging letter from the CC would be in order ;)

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

[lrosen]

The "really bad legal advice" was unfortunately the original application for a trademark on "open source" that you yourself filed before I became involved in OSI, and that the PTO rejected before I became OSI's attorney. Let's not relive that past, Bruce, and please don't try to blame me for the situation I encountered when I was first asked to repair your application.

OSI forcing licenses?

[Lilo-x]

why should they force companies to stick to a license, isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software

if there is a such a thing as true OSI then why do we need licenses? open source = you can see the source I don't think the definition should have to apply any further than that if companies dont want to

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[mulvane]

Wish I had mod points. I think you are correct in your statement. Its about someone having control. The license should be its own control mechanism and if a license doesn't live up to what its supposed to, the community as a whole will decide what happens to the code behind it. I don't need OSI to tell me that some company didn't live up to there standard of open source. That's my decision to make.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[iHasaFlavour]

It's more about stopping companies from claiming to be open source when they are just gaming the system and pretenting to be open source whilst really just wanting to gain access to the karma enhancing aspects of the term.

If I were to produce my own open source licence that meant people could use my code openly without fear of reprisal in their own projects, or fork it so long as they kept to my licence terms, it would be valid and the OSI would have no claim to challenge me.

If I produced a licence that meant people were not in fact able to use my code as they wished, but were instead restricted in that I was the only person who could legitimatelly use my code, or they were not allowed to do anything without paying a fee or explicitelly requiring my direct permission, such as by contacting me, that would be invalid.

Not that I couldn't continue to distribute my code or use my license, I'd just be challenged over the openness of it.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[essence]

open source = you can see the source I don't think the definition should have to apply any further than that if companies dont want to The word 'open' implies more than just being able to view the source. It implies what you should be able to do with it.

We need some standards. Letting companies attach any meaning they please to a common term makes the term useless.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[mdwh2]

open source = you can see the source

Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.

Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[WED Fan]

The word 'open' implies more than just being able to view the source. It implies what you should be able to do with it.
We need some standards. Letting companies attach any meaning they please to a common term makes the term useless.

We need to restrict people to OUR version of Freedom (Note: RMS has requested that we call it GNUFreedom). Only by removing all other choices can we make others free from the needing to make a choice. Only by making sure they make the GNURight choice can anyone be truly GNUFree. If a person does not see that this is truly GNUFreedom, then we must ridicule, berate, and bring tort until the individual accepts the GNUTruth and becomes truly GNUFree.

Sir, your GNUSarcasm doesn't help.

Oh, sorry, I GNUAppoligize.

Good, now the GNUCatechism: It is by surrendering all choice that I become truly free from freedom. It is truly freedom to be freed of making choices. GNUFreedom is our God and RMS is its GNUProphet. Blessed be GNUFreedom, blessed be the GNUProphet, GNUHoliness on his GNUName.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[Bruce Perens]

if a license doesn't live up to what its supposed to, the community as a whole will decide what happens to the code behind it.

Well, the community you are talking about are mostly software developers and users. They don't, in general, want to parse licenses. They don't necessarily have the background. I've seen in court, as an expert witness, what happens when 99% of engineers try to parse licenses without legal counsel. They get it wrong, unfortunately.

So, we thought we'd help you with the legal stuff. And of course, like all volunteers who try to help someone, once in a while the folks who we are trying to help send us a "screw you" because they are ignorant of what we do and resent that we do it because they haven't taken the time to figure out why it is necessary.

Bruce

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[fsmunoz]

Your comment would bee funnier if this had anything to do with GNU or the FSF. RMS himself, and the FSF, has nothing to do with the term "open source" and actively distances itself from it, its usage and OSI. The counterpart in the GNU world of this "debate" is the confusion between "free software" and "freeware", and I don't recall the FSF calling for enforcement on the usage of the latter. It's about the licence, what one calls it is of little importance.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[fsmunoz]

Just a clarification: this doesn't mean that Open Source software isn't Free Software, or vice versa. Just that the FSF main focus is on the usage of the latter, not the former.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[malachid69]

I agree - I don't see how they can justify saying Public Domain [for example] code can't be listed as 'open source'. I think if they decide to enforce it on actually open code, they are going to find new terms coming in to replace them.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[drinkypoo]

Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.

The term "Open Source" may or may not have been coined by the OSI. But to claim that they invented the idea out of whole cloth would be a lie at best.

Before the OSI even existed we had "Open Systems". This meant that interoperability was welcomed and even assisted by releasing useful specifications or even source code. But the source code wasn't freely redistributable, at least, not usually. Systems like SunOS were considered "Open" because if you were a customer and you had a legitimate need you could get source from Sun, and because the system is based entirely upon "Open Standards", standards which are published and which anyone can look up for free, like the RFCs which were distributed to the world typically by posting them to USENET (among other means.) ISO, IEC, and similar standards are not open, you have to pay for them and they are protected by copyright to the extent that you're not allowed to disseminate information within them. This is a bit ridiculous, since in theory facts are not copyrightable, only their presentation, but whatever.

The point here is that the OSI's attempt to define Open Source also constitutes an attempt to redefine the word open, which already has substantial historical meaning in the computing community. Whether it is altruistically motivated doesn't affect whether it's a logical move, or whether we should approve it. That is really quite irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant who pays for research. The only thing that matters in either case is the results, and I do not believe that they will be sufficiently beneficial to be worth the confusion.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[Matt Perry]

Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted. Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.

They have no legal right to enforce it because they currently do not have a trademark on the phrase "open source". That could change if they apply and make their case. I hope they do. But in the mean time it's just two words and what those words mean will continue to evolve as human language is used.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[Bruce Perens]

The point here is that the OSI's attempt to define Open Source also constitutes an attempt to redefine the word open

No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source". It no more attempts to redefine "Open" than the brand "The Prudential" attempts to redefine "The".

Bruce

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people tend to refer to you as "special"?

Is the bus you ride to school shorter than the one most of the children ride?

Do you often wear a hockey helmet, even though you don't have skates or a stick?

Screw it. Are you fucking retarded?

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[nomadic]

So, we thought we'd help you with the legal stuff.

But how are we sure that you're going to get it right?

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[nomadic]

No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source".

"Open Source" isn't just your "brand", it's a development methodology that predates OSI by several years.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[scottmillerinva]

so to be open, it must be controlled... To be free you must be controlled... Love it!!!

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[drinkypoo]

No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source". It no more attempts to redefine "Open" than the brand "The Prudential" attempts to redefine "The".

It may not be your goal, but it is part and parcel of what you are trying to do. The clash between your definition of "Open Source" and that in the minds of people who disagree with you is because "Open" means something in computing, and you want it to mean something else when you use it as part of the term "Open Source".

In fact, the term "Open" has been used to mean something about interoperability and open standards since the late 1970s.

I think many of us realize that "Open Source" and "Open Systems" do not mean the same thing. But because the names are so similar, there will necessarily be confusion. You have simply overloaded the term "Open" and this is, frankly, your own fault.

More planning, less confusion.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[Aladrin]

I'm all for standardizing the strict definition of 'open source' (within reason), and I'm all for encouraging people to use some of the more common licenses rather than invent their own. But when comes to 'it's not open source unless I say it's open source' then I draw the line. It has ceased to be a 'brand' and is now simply a term.

When you first hear the term, it's obvious that it means the source is available to modify. That infers that the source can also be compiled and used, because you can't modify it if you can't test it.

The term itself has no immediately meanings like 'no legal issues' or 'has to have an OSI approved license.' To find out that, you'd have to know to go to OSI's site to learn about it, and you wouldn't know that unless you had already been to OSI's site.

If they want to fight this fight, they've going to need to be more specific in their term. OSI-approved open source, or some such. Of course, that's unwieldy and nobody will use it.

Just the other day, and artist was releasing some of his 3d work for use for free games. (Non-commercial.) He used his own license he created that basically said 'do whatever, but not commercial.' Nicely permissive, and all that, but there's less hassle for everyone if he picks an existing license that says basically the same thing. After explaining why, he agreed that it was better and didn't harm him or his aims, and chose a Creative Commons - NC license.

People don't need to be bludgeoned over the head with a legal stick to see the light. It just has to be explained to them nicely.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[DeVilla]

open source = you can see the source

It shouldn't, but this makes me laugh. And does "Free Software" = "you didn't pay for it?"

This really is the first time it struck me how pointless the whole "Let's replace Free Software with a less ambiguous term" movement was. I agreed with it at the time. Free Software seemed too ambiguous. Open Source just made sense. Now I see it as just another lexicon game like the ones I've criticized others for. Well, ya live and learn.

It's not just the words people don't understand. Some folks are really just blind to the value of Open Source or Free Software.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[at_slashdot]

"It implies what you should be able to do with it." -- "open" is an attribute that explains how a thing is, not what you can do with it (at least this is my understanding of non-native speaker of English)

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[PitaBred]

Would you rather have nothing happen, and have the term "Open Source" be synonymous with "shareware" and the like? You can't ever have a guarantee that everything will work out perfectly, but that's no excuse to not try to do the right thing, to protect what's good.

Where do people get this mentality? It seems to be something common in my generation, much to my chagrin. And this is even with everyone getting an "A" for effort... oh, wait. Probably because of that. Never mind :)

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[nomadic]

Would you rather have nothing happen, and have the term "Open Source" be synonymous with "shareware" and the like? You can't ever have a guarantee that everything will work out perfectly, but that's no excuse to not try to do the right thing, to protect what's good.

Sure. I don't think it's a big deal if open source becomes synonymous with shareware. The concept predates the label, and we were all doing just fine without OSI.

And my question really related to Perens' claim that he was in a position to give legal advice to programmers.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[PitaBred]

Huh. Personally (and I think many people think like I do), I "trust" Open Source software a lot more to do what I'm expecting it to do, and allow me to fiddle with it. Shareware, I don't even install because it'll probably hose something in my system and not perform as advertised. I really don't want open source software to become diluted because of people co-opting and perverting the term. The concept may predate the label, but the electronic world was a LOT smaller back then, and you could trust people more. Just like Mayberry vs. Metropolis. Aunt Bea didn't have to worry about someone else selling pies with her name in Mayberry, but if she moved to Metropolis, someone somewhere would start selling "Aunt Bea's Pies", and if she didn't protect her name, their preservative laden crap would start being equated with her pies. Which just ain't right. Hence, what OSI is doing.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[sgtrock]

Here's a thought: Why don't you go to the OSI's website, read their definition for Open Source, then decide for yourself whether they got it right?

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[HardCase]

Screw it. Are you fucking retarded?

Well, that didn't take very long.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[WED Fan]

It's all fun and games until someone makes fun of YOUR religion.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[GaryPatterson]

It's not hard to get access to Microsoft's source code (provided you've got a suitably good reason, like being part of a large government). Access to that code isn't anything like Open Source. You've got to sign NDAs and not develop any similar technology for about seven years (going from memory here).

If the code is not released under an Open Source licence, you can't do anything with it. You can inspect it, but if you try to redistribute it (even with beneficial changes) you'll probably be personally sued.

My understanding is that Open Source allows viewing the code and redistribution of the code, even with changes. That changes everything, as now anyone can develop using this code. You may even be able to chop sections out for your own code, depending on the licence.

It looks to me like OSI is trying to highlight when companies are calling their code Open Source, but putting all sorts of restrictions around how and when you can use the code (if at all). There's a real qualitative difference between that sort of code access and a true Open Source access, where you're unrestricted in these areas, and some companies may be cashing in on the appearance of being open, when they're really not. I don't think there's anything in it for OSI, other than to strengthen what Open Source actually means and how companies promote their use of it.

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[falconwolf]

Aunt Bea didn't have to worry about someone else selling pies with her name in Mayberry, but if she moved to Metropolis, someone somewhere would start selling "Aunt Bea's Pies", and if she didn't protect her name, their preservative laden crap would start being equated with her pies. Which just ain't right. Hence, what OSI is doing.

But what gives the OSI the right to be the only entity to decide what the definition of "open source" is? BSD existed way before the OSI did.

Falcon

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[falconwolf]

open source = you can see the source

Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.

Ah, but the OSI did not introduce the term "open source". The OSI was founded in 1998, however two years before, in 1996, Caldera used the term "open source". See Caldera Announces Open-Source Code Model for DOS.

Falcon

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

[falconwolf]

Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.

And who has the authority over everyone else to decide what is the definition of "open source"?

Falcon

Open Source License Monopoly...

[mulvane]

So my license I make up for the hell of it with my terms that still allows anyone to view and audit my code if not approved by OSI means I can't market open source? Even though my code is open? Am I missing something about the word open?

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

The summary seems to suggest that they're going after people who don't brand their software correct according to it's constituent parts. For example, if you include GPL code in your program, you can't release it as a closed source proprietary software.

Legally they have no standing to say anything about software you wrote on your own without contributing code.

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[AusIV]

For that matter, someone who simply provides the source to their paying clients might claim to be open source - and while I'm sure that's not OSI's definition of Open Source, I don't see where OSI has any legal standing to prevent someone from using the term.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I missing something about the word open?

Yes, it's "Open Source", not "open source". Just like Microsoft has "Windows", but your house has "windows".

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[mulvane]

No..They are saying that if I don't allow redistribution as 1 example, my code is not open source. I totally disagree with that. I may not want my code used elsewhere. I open my code up for audit purposes only. That is Open Source in my book with the intent of what my license allows. OSI is saying NO, we created the Open Source Definition (OSD) and you license violates that. I guess I need to market a new term.... "Open Code" just to navigate the bastardization of there definition.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Benanov]

"I open my code up for audit purposes only. That is Open Source in my book with the intent of what my license allows."

Microsoft calls that "Shared Source"; try using that term instead.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like you are talking about Shared Source. Thats something completely different them Open Source.

See
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source //fatal

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

You can call your software anything you want. They don't own the term "open source" as it's too generic. Hell, MSFT could call Vista "open source" if they wanted. It's not, but there is no legal body that regulates what is "open source" and what is not.

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[mulvane]

I see "Shared Source", as an "Open Source" license honestly with MS spin on it. MS is imo in this case trying to sway things its way with its licenses so people will have less reason to use a more free license. A rose with any other name is still a rose.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Bruce Perens]

Sorry, your comment doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with who wrote the code, or the GPL. It has to do with the license of the code being compliant to the Open Source Definition, and the source code being available. If we don't demand that of people who brand their products as "Open Soucrce", anything - whether it has source code or not - will be called "Open Source".

Bruce

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

Yeah, it'd be nice if people didn't abuse the words "open source" but nobody holds a monopoly on their usage. How do you enforce this?

It's like saying it'd be nice if people stopped abusing the word "solution" when they mean "product," but who's gonna enforce that? Webster?

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[jshriverWVU]

Hell, MSFT could call Vista "open source" if they wanted. It's not, but there is no legal body that regulates what is "open source" and what is not.

We need a solid definition and have it added to the Oxford dictionary. Saying MSFT is Open Source is like saying MSFT is made of fairy dust. Nothing can stop you from saying it, but doesnt make it true. But having a solid definition in language dictionary legitimizes it's usage in the language. So at least you can say they're lying and have a way of proving it.

When it comes down to it, trying to describe a philosophy is one thing, pointing to a dictionary is another. For the common person what do you think they'll agree with?

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[mdwh2]

Can I sell my new open graphics library as "OpenGL" even if it has nothing to do with the other OpenGL?

Can I market Apple computers, because I sell computers that come in the shape of Apples?

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Bruce Perens]

How do you enforce this?

I suggest that you and I and everyone else in the community make it clear that someone is lying when they say their software is "Open Source" and their license doesn't comply with the OSD. We need to be loud about it.

Bruce

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Russ Nelson]

You would be unwise to call it Open Source if it doesn't comply with the Open Source Definition. Otherwise you will confuse your customers. Most people expect that certain set of rights, and if they don't get them, they might, say, accuse you of fradulent advertising. Or worse, they might go to your competition.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[UbuntuDupe]

The source is open. Therefore, it's open source.

The fact that you attach additional connotations to the combination "open source" is your problem, not the vendor's.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

I gave out software as public domain calling it "open source," is that OSI blessed? Should I be shamed for not using a license?

I make my statement by just not using software that annoys me. You won't find Windows on my desktop. You don't see a 360 by my TV, you won't see many Sony BMG CDs around my stereo, etc. I don't need a soapbox bigger than my posts to /. to comment on those that have business practices I disagree with.

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Bruce Perens]

I gave out software as public domain calling it "open source," is that OSI blessed? Should I be shamed for not using a license?

There is certainly no shame in giving out public domain software. And I think that OSI acknowledges that public domain software with available source is qualified to be called OSI Certified Open Source, so this is moot anyway. However, making it stick that your software is actually public domain means using the right legal language, and a whole lot of people get it wrong. U.S. copyright law actually does not include a definition of how someone can dedicate their software to the public domain or even whether they can do it. And of course that complicates things if you should ever get to court over something. So, BSD licensing is usually legally more solid than a dedication to the public domain.

I make my statement by just not using software that annoys me.

This is voting with your wallet, but without telling anyone else how you feel or helping to form a community (by being in one), you reduce your chances that anyone will listen to you and change to something that does not annoy you. Politics requires communication to work. Otherwise, you're sort of like a hermit who separates himself from society for good and valid reasons but does nothing to help reform society.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[cbreaker]

But they didn't use the TERM "Open Source" because their software is NOT Open Source. They created a new term that better matches their program.

Whether or not YOU see it that way, obviously Microsoft did, and so does the OSI. The OSI and company branded the term "Open Source" and I think they have every right to make it known when someone tries to use the term for deceptive marketing practices when their product is actually not Open Source.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

re: copyright, yes you can declare software as public domain in the USA. You can't have copyright without public domain, that is, copyright is defined as materials not in the public domain [and vice versa].

re: politics, I let others make up their minds. I learned long ago people don't want to be told how/where/what to buy/use/do. And since I generally don't have an endless supply of friends I let them to whatever isn't wholly immoral. One of my friends has a 360. I don't call him "evil" or whatever for supporting MSFT. It's his choice, who am I to tell him otherwise?

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[nomadic]

I don't see where OSI has any legal standing to prevent someone from using the term

They don't.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Hatta]

You can't have copyright without public domain, that is, copyright is defined as materials not in the public domain [and vice versa].

That doesn't follow. If copyright is all materials not in the public domain, and there is no public domain, then there are no materials in the public domain, and copyright is all materials. With no public domain, everything is copyrighted by default. And that is actually the case in countries that adhere to the Berne convention.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[fbjon]

It's the vendors who are subverting the original understanding and subsequent definition of open source, not the other way around.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Bruce Perens]

re: copyright, yes you can declare software as public domain in the USA. You can't have copyright without public domain, that is, copyright is defined as materials not in the public domain [and vice versa].

Show me where the law says you can dedicate something to the public domain. We all do it, and it would probably stand up in court, but I don't think the law says you can. Last time I checked, things went into public domain when their patent or copyright expired, period.

I learned long ago people don't want to be told how/where/what to buy/use/do.

I am glad that other people do feel the discussion of politics is important. I think it helps to develop a just society. I guess it would not be necessary in the libertarian utopia.

Bruce

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

The definition of a copyright is something for which the rights to reproduce or distribute are protected. That can't possibly be everything. What if you wrote a book, had no family and then died? Who owns it then? What of government works? etc.

So clearly public domain exists [and indeed at least in Canada/USA that's the case]. If something is public domain in Canada it isn't copyrighted. By default, all new productions are copyrighted, therefore they're not public domain. But that doesn't mean you can't relinquish your rights to copyright.

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Hatta]

That can't possibly be everything

Why not?

What if you wrote a book, had no family and then died? Who owns it then?

No one? It's entirely conceivable that no one would have rights to a work.

What of government works?

They could be owned by the government. Not that they are.

So clearly public domain exists

Clearly it does, but it's not necessarily the case that because Copyright exists Public Domain must also. I can easily imagine a government corrupt enough as to abolish the Public Domain entirely.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

Telling people what to do/buy/support is not how you develop a "just society." Just because you think all software should be freely available with no renumeration for the creators doesn't mean everyone else does. And it doesn't mean that your position is always right. Get over yourself.

I like the idea of free software, but I'm not totally zealot to think that proprietary software is worthless.

For example, if I spend time to highly optimize an implementation of MPEG decoding, why should I give it out as free software? Just because you're too cheap to pay me for my efforts? Because the lovey-dovey thing to do is embrace "love, peace, free software?"

Ok, I gave it out for free, will you pay my rent and buy my groceries?

I'm against people abusing the terms "open source" to leverage the good will towards their non-open products. But given there is no regulating body, there isn't much you can do about it other than make stupid faces and post on slashdot.

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Rycross]

I'll also add to this point of view. I'm assuming that the OSD is generally accepted to be the official definition.

If you mark your software as Open Source, then that implies additional responsibilities on parties that wish to use modified versions of your software. The end result is that these parties may not opt to use, or pay for, your software, because you inappropriately marked your software. So its basically bad from both sides of the isle: people may turn it down because you're marketing it as open and they don't want open, or people may turn it down because you're marketing it as open and that pisses them off.

I don't like to use the term FUD, but it definitely exemplifies the U term in FUD.

Its in everyone's (well, almost everyone's) best interest to label your software appropriately to avoid confusion. The only question is whether or not the OSD is, or should be, the standard definition.

Personally, I think it should be, because they've made a compelling argument for their point. I don't think it is, yet.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

"being not copyrighted" IS PUBLIC DOMAIN.

If "nobody owned the rights" then you can't be found libel for violating someones copy rights can you? That's public domain.

The only alternative is that the government auctions the rights to private citizens to always ensure that they never fall out of protection. Which is not how it works in Canada and the USA.

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Nevyn]

re: copyright, yes you can declare software as public domain in the USA. You can't have copyright without public domain, that is, copyright is defined as materials not in the public domain [and vice versa].

Yes, but AIUI there's no legal way, in the US, to move something from being in the copyright bucket to being in the "public domain" bucket ... without waiting for death + 30^W 50 ^W 70 years. Just saying "this code is public domain" leaves you open to warranty claims and leaves your users open to being sued by your estate for copyright infringement. Just BSD+MIT+whatever multi-license it, it does the same thing but protects everyone involved.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[corythewizard]

But the problem with a dictionary is there are still multiple definitions for a single word, so you would still end up with the same problem.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

"being not copyrighted" IS PUBLIC DOMAIN.

I believe all he was saying is that there isn't really any way to create something and then relinquish your rights to it before the copyright would naturally expire. Everything I've read about copyright leads me to believe that every work is automatically copyrighted upon creation, and that there is no legally recognized act that can unambiguously remove it from copyright.

Say a developer posted the source code for a program on his website for anyone to download with a big notice on the web page and in the source code that it was in the public domain. If the developer later attempted to reclaim his copyright, do you really believe there isn't a single court which might find in his favor? Especially given all the latest laws being passed recently making copyright stronger and stronger?

Looking through Public Domain on Wikipedia, I found the following passages interesting:

It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of judge-made law, rather than statute

So, at the very best it's unclear how to release a work from copyright, and would in fact be up to the judicial system to work out. That uncertainty in my mind creates the likelihood that in today's atmosphere it would be very dangerous to rely on someone's dedication to the public domain. The article then discusses a section of the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act dealing with "public domain computer shareware" and a method of actually placing software into the public domain (this was *not* passed into law).

Later on, a discussion of a court case concerning software in the public domain:

This decision holds that computer software may enter the public domain through "freely accessible program exchanges and the like," or by becoming "commonplace in the computer industry." Relying only on this decision, it is unclear whether an author can dedicate his work to the public domain simply by labeling it as such, or whether dedication to the public domain requires widespread dissemination.

Still unclear. Many people in industry and government would like to treat intellectual property exactly the same as real property. If I stood outside a tract of land that I owned and proclaimed that I was relinquishing my ownership of it, maybe even placed a sign, do you really think I wouldn't be responsible for the property tax and such?

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

So my license I make up for the hell of it with my terms that still allows anyone to view and audit my code if not approved by OSI means I can't market open source?

If it doesn't meet the Open Source Definition, then you can't. I imagine they probably wouldn't come after you for advertising as open-source with a license that met the OSD but wasn't OSI-approved. Anyway, the cost of getting a new license approved by the OSI is basically put it on a webpage and summarize it for them.

Even though my code is open?

You may call it "open" if you like, but not "open source". (You may have noticed that the two terms differ by 6 letters.) Other terms starting with "open" under which you probably can't advertise it include: OpenGL, OpenBSD, The Open Group, and the US Open.

Am I missing something about the word open?

No, it's the word "source" you seem to be missing. :-)

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[MacJedi]

Congratulations, you have rediscovered why trademarks exist.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

You have the right to not pursue copyrights. If I release/distribute/publish something that I own and declare that I won't pursue any rights under copyright doctrine, I can hardly sue anyone who takes it and uses it.

Either you can abandon copyright and the declaration is sufficient. OR you can't and the declaration is a license which binds to the distribution (just like GPL/BSD/MIT/etc would).

Tom

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[RobertLTux]

its a bit nasty but you could GPL a program and then only send the source to your paying customers (maybe by including the source on your install media).

Open Source/ OSI could be something that the OSI could sue over so its just a bit of a jump to sue over a license that claims to be Open Source and implies OSI.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[eggnoglatte]

You are right in that GPL and Open Source in general do not require you to distribute your work to everybody. You could definitely restrict distribution to paying customers as you say.

However, even in this case you would not have control over what that paying customer does that code. They would in fact be free to redistribute the code to anybody else. So as soon as you give the code to one party under an Open Source license, ypu kind of have let the genie out of the bottle, and the work is for all practical purposes publicly available.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[taragui]

So clearly public domain exists

Clearly it does, but it's not necessarily the case that because Copyright exists Public Domain must also. I can easily imagine a government corrupt enough as to abolish the Public Domain entirely.

You seem to be completely missing Bruce's point. As far as I can see, neither he nor anyone else has claimed that there is no such thing as works in the public domain. The law is crystal clear in that regard; once copyright on a work expires, it enters the public domain.

What is not clear at all is whether you are entitled to renounce copyright on works of your authorship before it expires. There are many examples of rights that cannot be waived, such as those to liberty or life; you can't sell yourself into slavery, nor lawfully commit suicide. A case could therefore be made that the moral rights entailed by copyright law are similarly unrenounceable, and that any legal instrument purporting to renounce them is actually invalid. I am not saying that this is the case (AFAIK there is no precedent on the matter in the USA), but given that it is a clear possibility, it may actually be more reasonable to choose a generous license than to attempt dedication to the public domain.

Incidentally, see the template to that effect in the Wikimedia Commons to see a cautious approach to the issue.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Hatta]

If "nobody owned the rights" then you can't be found libel for violating someones copy rights can you? That's public domain.

You'd be unlikely to have someone press charges, but that doesn't make it legal. It's entirely conceivable that a country could have laws that prohibit any copying unless specifically authorized by the person who owns the rights. If no one owns the rights, no one could possibly authorize copying, so it would be illegal. That is one scenario in which it is possible to have copyright without a public domain.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not call your graphics library "OpenGL", because OpenGL is a registered trademark of SGI. Have a look at the page footer of http://www.opengl.org/

Open Source on the other hand is not a registered trademark, so the OSI are pissing into the wind.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[Bruce Perens]

What if you wrote a book, had no family and then died? Who owns it then? What of government works? etc.

Under the Berne Copyright Convention, it is copyrighted by default. The U.S. ratified that treaty. Before that treaty, things were public domain by default, after then, they were copyrighted by default.

What happens if you die with nobody to inherit? Yes, the state you live in would probably own it.

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

[tomstdenis]

That would be retarded and fortunately is not how both Canada and the USA work. If old works just "died" never to be seen/read/heard/played/etc again we as a whole would lose out.

Tom

Hmmm

[El Lobo]

Not using an "approved" license doesn't mean that the program is not OS. That only means that the program is not Open Source by the rules of (insert the tyranic powers you like here). I can write a program and publish it with the source with the license "Do whatever you want with it but don't call me "Shirley"". And this IS an Open Source program like it or not.

Politics sucks , but software politics sucks infinitly more. And don't get me started about software religions, of which Open Source is one of it's maximal exponents... ewwwkkk.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's posts like the parent post that make me glad that the Slashbots aren't in power.

Re:Hmmm

[Russ Nelson]

Actually, we're just trying to enforce our trademark on Open Source. If you don't like our trademark or our ownership of it, use a different term, like Shared Source, or Source Available. If you want to use the term that we have spent years and dollars promoting, then you have to do it under our terms (which are very reasonable).

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, the infamous Non-Shirley Open Licence. I'm afraid that one doesn't hold up in court though, as evidenced in the 1980's case Rumack vs. Striker.

Re:Hmmm

[nomadic]

Actually, we're just trying to enforce our trademark on Open Source. If you don't like our trademark or our ownership of it, use a different term, like Shared Source, or Source Available. If you want to use the term that we have spent years and dollars promoting, then you have to do it under our terms (which are very reasonable).

You don't have a trademark on Open Source.

Re:Hmmm

[Russ Nelson]

Pseudonyms think pseudothings.

Re:Hmmm

[jon_anderson_ca]

I can write a program and publish it with the source with the license "Do whatever you want with it but don't call me "Shirley"". And this IS an Open Source program like it or not.

If you have such a license (though why you wouldn't pick one of the existing ones, I don't understand), you can get OSI's rubber stamp on your license.

Really, the process doesn't look very hard or time-consuming, and at the end, if open-source is a selling point of your software, you can say "see, this standardizing body says that my software really is open source".

If you don't want to bother with the OSI process, well, think whatever you want about your license. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Just please don't confuse Pointy-Haired Bosses by mucking with semantics. Analogy: a modified Linux is still Linux (sort of), but if you care about the community, you'll help keep things clear by not selling Linux-with-intentional-bugs-thrown-in as "Linux".

Re:Hmmm

[nomadic]

Pseudonyms think pseudothings.

In other words, you have no substantive response to my statement. You do not have a trademark registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office. You have not established a common-law trademark, because you weren't the first to use it. Your statement, therefore, was false.

Re:Hmmm

[Russ Nelson]

Oh, accusing people who hide behind pseudonyms of breaking the law is fairly pointless. But since you insist, I insist and demand that you stop disparaging our trademark and remove your disparaging statements from Slashdot. that for a substantive response? Oh, and we were the first to use the mark in commerce in our field. I put it on my packet driver floppy disk distribution shortly after it was created. For only $15 you can get your own copy of our Official Evidence of First Use. Yes, it was in use in the intelligence community, and yes, one or two people used it to describe software, but nobody used it in commerce for software. Unless I'm wrong, of course, but you'd need evidence, not pseudothings.

Re:Hmmm

[nomadic]

Oh, accusing people who hide behind pseudonyms of breaking the law is fairly pointless. But since you insist, I insist and demand that you stop disparaging our trademark and remove your disparaging statements from Slashdot. that for a substantive response?

You're a funny little guy. First of all, disparagement of trademark isn't what you think it means. Maybe you're thinking of defamation.

Oh, and we were the first to use the mark in commerce in our field. I put it on my packet driver floppy disk distribution shortly after it was created. For only $15 you can get your own copy of our Official Evidence of First Use.

Really....that's an interesting claim. When exactly was this packet driver distribution released?

Unless I'm wrong, of course, but you'd need evidence, not pseudothings.

Well if you're so confident, give me a nice definite answer as to when you first used it in commerce, and we'll go from there.

Re:Hmmm

[Russ Nelson]

Oh, I think the best way for you to get a date is to purchase the packet driver collection on a floppy disk, and give me an address to send it to. That way we'll have an address to serve process on. Or have you thought twice about disparaging our trademark? (Yes, I think I mean disparagement. Or are you meaning to confess to defamation instead?)

$15 to paypal.com@russnelson.com with your address.

Re:Hmmm

[nomadic]

Oh, I think the best way for you to get a date is to purchase the packet driver collection on a floppy disk
Well let's make it easier than that. OSI was founded in 1998. According to OSI's website:

The 'open source' label was invented at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California. The people present included Todd Anderson, Chris Peterson (of the Foresight Institute), John "maddog" Hall and Larry Augustin (both of Linux International), Sam Ockman (of the Silicon Valley Linux User's Group), Michael Tiemann, and Eric Raymond.

So I'm going to assume that your use of it "in commerce" happened at some point after that. Makes sense, right? You're a member of the OSI I hear, and presumably if they were spreading falsehoods about the genesis of the label, you'd say something.

Let's turn our clocks back a bit and look at a press release from 1996:

"CALDERA. ANNOUNCES OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS
DR DOS. + the Internet = Caldera OpenDOS
PROVO, Utah Sept. 10, 1996 Caldera. Inc. today announced that it will openly distribute the source code for DOS via the Internet as part of the company's plans to encourage continued development of DOS technologies and applications, further leveling the playing field for software developers worldwide. This effort, targeted to benefit both individual developers and industry partners, follows Caldera's commitment to embrace and fund an open software environment. Caldera also announced plans for internal development and marketing of DOS, including a new product called Caldera OpenDOS ."

Skip ahead a little, and they spell it out:

DOS users will also benefit from the exchange of technical support that occurs between end users in an open-source development environment. For example, the community of Linux users connected via the Internet provide each other with technical support for Linux-based products that surpasses the quality, speed and value of technical support historically provided by major industry software vendors. Caldera believes that openly publishing the source code for DOS will create a similar environment.

Hmmm, definitely sounds like a definition of open source to me. And they're using it in commerce to boot. Of course, they don't follow all of OSI's little requirements, but that's the point, isn't it--OSI is claiming control over a term they didn't create.

Or have you thought twice about disparaging our trademark?

I would love to see you bring that before a judge: "Your Honor", you whine, "he's DISPARAGING OUR TRADEMARK". A trademark you don't have. Do you really think this is going to fly? Are you so sure there's a "disparagement of trademark" cause of action, anyway? Do you think you're going to meet the elements of one, if it does exist?

Re:Hmmm

[Russ Nelson]

Sigh. You're wasting our time. Just because somebody uses a phrase in a press release, that doesn't establish it as a trademark. If it had, then Bob Schiefler would own "Windows" because he used "Windows" when talking about X10 well before Microsoft introduced "Windows(R)".

Come back when you're done posting under a pseudonym. Quite clearly you feel free to encourage people to violate the law because (as I stated earlier) there are no consequences for you to do so.

Heh..

[mikkelm]

So, they're all for open software and open licensing and open everything, but only if it's the kind of open approved by them?

Apparently it's okay to attempt to monopolise a market, as long as you're convinced that your intentions are noble. "Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.

Re:Heh..

[hal9000(jr)]

"Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.

His point is that companies are labeling their shit as "open source" when, in fact, it is not. That causes confusion with companies and people as to what "open source" is. Complicates "open source" advocacy, and is generally a detriment to the "open source" market and community.

I don't know if the companies that are mentioned are, or are not, open source, and that isn't *my* point either.

Re:Heh..

[mikkelm]

The article clearly states that he wants to lash out at products that label their "non OSI approved" licenses as "open source". Regardless of what the license says.

"once every 2-3 months we'd receive notice that some company or another was advertising that their software was "open source" when the license was not approved by the OSI board"

That is a very broad and general statement that doesn't in any way specify whether or not the license is actually "open" or not, but instead works to say "this whole open source thing is mine and you can't be open source unless you ask me or I will be mad and sue".

Just like you described, the idea of having a monopoly is to not cause confusion as to what your product does and should offer, to not complicate advocacy of your product, and to keep other vendors from being detrimental to your market and community.

The OSI is simply trying to monopolise the movement by demanding that licenses are "approved" by them. Nothing more.

Re:Heh..

[Yvanhoe]

You can't put a "Free meal" label on the front of your restaurant if you don't provide free meals.
You can't put a "Open Source" label on your software package if you don't provide the source.

This is not about trademark infrigement, this is about deceptive marketing. The OSI has a good position to make such attacks, but anyone could do so, on the same ground.

Re:Heh..

[roystgnr]

"Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.

If it was a philosophy free to be interpreted by the user, nobody would have a problem with companies mislabeling their licenses. I would simply interpret those licenses to let me exercise the freedoms that have been defined as requirements of "Free Software" and "Open Source" for decades, and I would be happy.

I don't think they would be happy, though. I think that they'd want to enforce *their* redefinition of "open source" in court, and prohibit me from exercising the rights granted by the common interpretations of the term. Otherwise they would have used a real open source license to begin with.

Apparently it's okay to attempt to monopolise a market,

If I tell you that this sentence isn't intelligent, it's not because I'm trying to monopolize the "market" for the word "intelligent", it's because the word "intelligent" has a meaning which does not apply here. It's similar with the phrase "open source". You are free to write software for any market you wish, publish it under any license you wish. You are not free to attempt to deceive your customers by describing your license inaccurately.

Re:Heh..

[Anonymous Coward]

And equally, you can't claim out of thin air to have the authority to change the term "Free meal" to only apply if you get a copy of the recipe too. Open source means you can see the source. That's what it has always meant. Specific licenses may grant or restrict further rights, but that's their problem.

Re:Heh..

[chdig]

It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.
Wouldn't the term "closed-source" also be a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone as well?

Why doesn't the OSI set up their own official list of known "closed-source" licences?
The question is whether the OSI can become the de-facto holders of the open-source trademark, whether it exists or not.

Oh, and the user can't interpret the term "open-source" their own way if it's a closed-source (you can look but you can't touch) licence being imposed on them, can they?

--
Smells like a civil war a brewin'

Re:Heh..

[chrismcb]

OSI is defining "Open Source" to mean "Approved by OSI." This is news to me, and I suspect news to about 99.9% of the population not directly connected to OSI. If you provide some sort of license that is similar to OSI approved liscenses how is it "deceptive marketing?" What does Open Source actually mean? Bruce was stating it means 4 things. Yet many people here don't seem to know/agree to that. So you expect non Slash Dotters to truley understand the meaning?

Re:Heh..

[toddestan]

Well, I can think of situations where the company can provide you with the source code, but not with the freedoms that the BSD license or the GPL provide (such as the ability to redistribute the source code, or to use that code in another application). The question is, can a company distribute their program that way, and have the option of calling it "open source"?

Re:Heh..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user. Hi, this is Steve Ballmer. Your post inspires me. From here on in, we at Microsoft choose to interpret "open source" to mean "no source, costs money, and you can't modify or redistribute it." Come see the new Open Source Microsoft!

Re:Heh..

[mikkelm]

Microsoft is free to do that if they wish. The thing about open source being open to interpretation by the user is that the user is free to decide of any given piece of software is compatible with their own interpretation of the term. If they choose not to use that freedom, and decide to just buy whatever has a little "open source" logo on it, then the problem is not with the definition, but with the user.

Re:Heh..

[mikkelm]

Of course a user can apply their own interpretation of "open source" on a closed source license. It's as simple as saying "Hey, this closed source license doesn't really conform with what I consider to be open source."

That's all there is to it. If you need little stickers saying "OSI approved!" on the box of any "open source" software you buy, you're pretty much an idiot anyway.

Re:Heh..

[mikkelm]

*Everything* is free to be interpreted by the user. When a company pushes its products as being the "most ever!", you're free to interpret that. It might be mislabled to you, yes, but to someone else, it might be right on the money. A license may not be considered "open source" by the OSI, but to some users, it might be precisely what they consider to be "open source". It's free to be interpreted by the user.

If I tell you that your post isn't intelligent, it's not because I'm trying to monopolise the "market" for the word "intelligent", it's because the word "intelligent" has a meaning which does not apply here. If I tell you that your post isn't intelligent, and then attempt to force my definition of "intelligent" on you and make you withdraw or alter your comment because of it, then yes, I would most certainly be attempting to monopolise the "market" for the word "intelligence", and this is precisely what the OSI is trying to do with the term "open source".

Corporations have been decieving and misleading their customers with inaccurate descriptions with impunity for decades. This is nothing new. We don't need some vigilante organisation attempting to monopolise the definition of a term that already has a market built up around it. An "OSI approved open source product!" sticker on a box is not going to make me any more likely to buy that product over one that claims to "just" be "open source".

If the term described an industry specification, and if the OSI were key to it in any real way, they could label it whatever they want. The thing is that no matter how many people or organisations try to claim that their definition is the "correct open source definition", the term will never be subject to any one definition. Any centralised license approval will be completely worthless, and frankly quite ridiculous.

Re:Heh..

[chdig]

Given the disagreement among slashdotters on what open source is, your average person is going to have a very hard time understanding just how open an "open source" project is -- especially since it takes a technically-able person or a lawyer to understand which licences are open-source in the view of most open-source advocates/the OSI.

It's like saying there's no need for "organic" labelling. An expert could determine whether it's organic or not, but most people can't -- and they're not idiots.

While the average person shouldn't be considered an idiot, you are most definitely an elitist.

Re:Heh..

[mikkelm]

Elitist? I don't even know if I use any open source software at all right now. No need for the ad hominem attacks.

Comparing "organic" food with "open source" software is comparing apples to oranges (yes, it had to be done.) The general perception of what "open source" is, is immediately tangible to anyone who would care, and as such, easily discernable from false advertisement. "Organic" food is not. When you're buying "organic" food, you have no choice but to trust the label. When you're buying software, however, you have every opportunity to examine whether a claim of being "open source" is true or not, and if you buy an "open source" product because of a sticker on a box, and find the license to be too restrictive for you, then yes, you are an idiot, and you deserve whatever you get.

Ummm, right.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Since when does OSI have power over *anything*? This would be like the American Peanut Council complaining that certain products said they "may contain peanuts," when they actually didn't.

Re:Ummm, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

This software may contain traces of Open Source Software.

hahaha. This satire gold. I would love to see the Government mandate it.

Re:Ummm, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem: Open source existed for decades before the OSI was founded. What gives the OSI the right to hijack the term and then coerce companies into using the term by the OSI's rules?

Re:Ummm, right.

[fbjon]

My problem: Open source existed for decades before the OSI was founded. What gives the OSI the right to hijack the term and then coerce companies into using the term by the OSI's rules?

They took the right because you were too lazy to do anything. Stop complaining and be glad someone else is doing it for you, because someone has to.

You can't use the term "Champagne" about any other drinks than those from Champagne, the same for Cognac (at least in Europe). These drinks are produced in specific soil under specific circumstances, anything else is false advertising. The same should apply to Open Source software, and this should be enforced.

If you don't agree with the definition of Open Source, you're a bit too late to the party, as the sharing of source code is a long tradition by now. Would anyone seriously talk about Open Source Software (OSS as we know it), if you could only look but not touch? No, of course not. Should any vendor then be allowed to piss on the meaning of OSS? No, of course not.

Re:Ummm, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find my Australian Sparkling White Wine far superiour to this "Champagne" of which you speak, you insensitive clod. Now I know simply not to buy "Champagne".

Re:Ummm, right.

[fbjon]

Of course, it's a matter of taste, but there are a million that are worse / taste cheaper.

Open Source phrase is public domain

[gorfie]

Similar to the problem Google faces with people using the word "google" as another way to say "search", the phrase "open source" is widely accepted as meaning "source code available for use". The only difference is that "Google" is widely known as a company while "open source" has no meaning beyond the concept described above. This "open source initiative" looks like a way for somebody to make a quick buck - there should be no license necessary to categorize your software as open source. Sure some may try to abuse the phrase by releasing only portions of their code (if that) but it's the same way companies abuse other phrases like "standard" and "secure".

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[AusIV]

Similar to the problem Google faces with people using the word "google" as another way to say "search", the phrase "open source" is widely accepted as meaning "source code available for use". The only difference is that "Google" is widely known as a company while "open source" has no meaning beyond the concept described above.

"Google" is a registered trademark. "Open Source" is not.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[Russ Nelson]

Well, that's a great legal theory, and it might have some weight with the court, but we established the trademark, and we promoted it, and you know what it means through our hard work. Now you're trying to take my work away from me? I don't think so. Open Source, when applied to software, means "software whose license complies with the Open Source Definition" as evinced by our listing of the license on our website.

If you don't like that, take it to a court and see how far you get.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[_Hiro_]

I do like the concept of Open Source, and run a lot of good, honest Open Source software both at work and at home, but you (and Mr. Perens, and others) built the concept of Open Source around having a community of people all able to access things (in this case, source code) that have no physical value freely ('libre' to rip off the FSF). And now you want to play proprietary with the terminology?

I'm not saying you're wrong in doing so (as much as I may disagree with the apparent militantism), but am I the only one who sees the contradiction?

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the difference is, you are trying to apply Open Source(tm) to open source products.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[Russ Nelson]

How do people identify a set of desirable characteristic with a thing? The standard method is to use a brand name which by law may only be used by products that have those characteristics. The law further identifies an organization which decides whether the products have those characteristics. In this case, it's Open Source and the Open Source Initiative.

If you don't like that system, propose an alternative that has some chance of working. The one you seem to propose is "Well, just let anybody call anything Open Source because anything else wouldn't be Open". Under that regime I predict the rapid destruction of any meaning for "Open Source".

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[Russ Nelson]

No. Something can be open source without using Open Source branding. Just like something can be oatmeal without being Quaker Oats. We have a perfectly fine term for such software: free software.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

A luser had tried to use cellophane in the xerox machine and now it was stuck. In my mind I put a pogo stick up said spandex-wearing luser's behind and drop him in the river without an Aqua-lung. I took an aspirin and opened my thermos to flush it down with some kiwi fruit tea. Those yo-yos in marketing should have had a photostat instead, but that suggestion had gone down like a lead zeppelin. Good thing I brought an allen wrench, because the escalator was stuck too. What can you expect, when the kids use it like a trampoline. A couple of them missed once, and hit the tarmac making a sound that neither mimeograph nor gramophone can reproduce.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[_Hiro_]

The problem though, with the "standard method" is that the characteristics aren't always researched, and can start varying from one person to the next.

For example (a poor one, but still...) Kleenex. It's a brand name that has come to describe a product with a given set of characteristics. But which characteristics? A piece of tissue appropriate for clearing of nasal passages? Or for someone to get away with calling their tissue Kleenex does it have to be a wood-pulp tissue of a given dimension? How far away from that umbrella (Which, admittedly, developed from lack of enforcing trademark) do you have to go to no longer be a "Kleenex" and therefore liable to getting hit with said trademark?

I realize the OSI has a firm definition, but why that definition? Just because you coined the term over 15 years before the OSI came into existence? Or, like this crowd seems to indicate (which may be truthful, may be astroturf, may be trolls getting their daily feed), has the term gained a life of its own with too diverse of an interpretation for a trademark to really hold up?

Like I said, it's not that I don't think you have a right to enforce it, I'm just thinking that at this point, the term has wandered too far in scope and public definition, and you should at least consider that the time for standing up may have passed, and concentrate on the endorsements / logo program. Either that, or actually get it branded by law, and get something through congress in one piece that defines Open Source from a legal perspective.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[PitaBred]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[Frosty Piss]

Well now...

He resigned on 23 February 2005 following widely reported anonymous criticism of a blog article he wrote entitled "Blacks Are Lazy" (Wikipedia.org)

What's all this, than?

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[ericrost]

Bad straw man with Kleenex. Kleenex describes a tissue PRODUCED BY KLEENEX. Anything else MARKETED that way would be TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT. Now, you may commonly refer to any tissue that way, but that's not MARKETING.

Get the difference?

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[_Hiro_]

I get the difference, hence why I said it was a poor example.

But regardless, it does have parallels, not the least of which is that Kimberly-Clark (who makes Kleenex, there is no Kleenex company) is one of the more famous examples of a trademark that has become unserviceable due to dilution. (Which is what Google is hoping to avoid, etc., etc.) With "Open" having been a term in programming even before "Open Source" was coined, and then the registered trademark thereof being abandoned, I really think that being militant with the phrase is unwarranted, possibly confusing ("You can do what you want with Open Source Code, but you can't vary from OUR definition of Open Source."), and counter to the type of image that the OSS community really wants to portray (At least from my perspective). Hence I'm merely advocating that the terminology should be quietly put in the public domain, and work on shoring up and protecting the logo/sticker instead.

To protect the term, all I feel is warranted is using basic activism to spread the word around for people who are using "Open Source" in the description of a product without an OSI-Definition-Compatible license. If a case gets to flagrant, deceptive marketing suits aren't out of the question. (Hence my example of being too far outside the umbrella of "Generic" to risk falling afoul of the neutered Kleenex trademark.)

Re:Open Source phrase is public domain

[ericrost]

Actually, I think Kleenex is a great example. You are free to refer to whatever you like in common parlance as Kleenex, but someone can't advertise a product under the Kleenex trademark other than the makers of Kleenex, or their assigned agents.

While Open Source as a trademark is licensed more permissively, it is in the same vein. I do see your point that open was used ahead of Open Source, but Open Source wasn't.

I'm not sure where I fall on if this is the best way to approach it, however if Microsoft ever tried to market their sign and NDA and don't produce anything "Shared Source" approach as Open Source, I'd be more than happy to see this approach have some teeth to go after that farce.

I'm sorry...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if I want to release something as "open source", I'll release it under terms that I think qualify as such, even if I write my own distribution license. My code. My rules. If OSI wants to protect "Open Source" as a trademark, that's fine. I'll avoid the capitalization ;-)

And if that's still a problem, I'll start calling it something else. Perhaps I'll call mine "free source" to contrast it with the official "Open Source", which has freedom in terms of the code, but much more restrictive rules in terms of approval of licensing terms.

Open Source is a specific kind of software

[Bruce Perens]

Open Source software has licensing that conforms to the Open Source Definition and in addition the source code must be available. It is not just anything you think of. Long ago, OSI decided to abandon registration of "Open Source" alone, in my opinion on bad advice from their then legal counsel. However, it's still a common law trademark. But regardless of its trademark status, the community should not tolerate just anything being called Open Source, or you will find Microsoft using it for stuff that includes no freedom to modify, etc.

Bruce

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[giorgiofr]

But why would we want an authority presiding over the definition of open source software? Because if we don't have one, the name will be abused? It's not like OSI could ever stop MS from calling Vista open source... and if it ever became able to do that, it would mean OSI has gained political power. Do you want that? Yet another incompetent, worthless, abusive, governmental (but I repeat myself) burden on your life?
How about we let the industry sort his out, like it's currently doing, and quite successfully to boot? Don't you realize this is purely a power grab?

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[Bruce Perens]

It's not like OSI could ever stop MS from calling Vista open source

They could make it very clear that it was a lie, and I'd expect you and the rest of the community to help with that.

it would mean OSI has gained political power. Do you want that?

Well, I have political power. I just came back from helping the government of Italy with an Open Source bill, and am on my way to Norway where I regularly meet with their government committee on this, and I do similar stuff in the US and elsewhere. Do you want that? :-)
I am OK with OSI having the "political power" to police a brand. It's not as if we're giving them control over martial law. I would hate for Microsoft to be the only one with political power who has something to say about this issue.

Bruce

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[JonJ]

I'm from Norway, you actually meet with our government on a regular basis? That's good news! I was not aware of that. Keep up the good work!

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[Bruce Perens]

I'm from Norway, you actually meet with our government on a regular basis? That's good news! I was not aware of that. Keep up the good work!

There is a technology committee of the government, and one of the members hosts me in his home several times a year and consults me via email at other times when I can contribute to what they are working on. Sometimes I go to Oslo and speak directly with ministers and their staffers. And I teach at HiA in Kristainsand in the summer. I'll be at their Grimstad campus in the morning, I'm at LHR waiting for a flight change. I take a a little credit for Norway having the most sane policies regarding these issues of any country I know, but of course many people work on it.

Bruce

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[brian_tanner]

I totally agree with Bruce here, I don't quite understand what so many people don't seem to get (unless maybe I don't get it). The phrase "Open Source" was originally introduced to mean something specific, lets call it meaning A. Now, people use the phrase "open source" a alot, and their personal interpretation of the words can be different than meaning A. The problem now is, that if I want to know if your project corresponds to meaning A, there is no longer a word for that.

People seem to be quick on here to whip out some new definition of open source, many have said (paraphrasing) "If the source is available for viewing, I call that open source. OSI is dumb for saying open source should stand for meaning A".

Well guess what, here's a scenario: I'm an asshat, and I think that my products will sell better if they are called "open source". Since there is not official definition that is enforced, *I* think open source means "some (however small) part of the work is in some way (however smaller) derived from a project that has been labeled by the contributors as open source". Now, I've created a new commercial product that reuses some very freely licensed code library. Lets say that license doesn't require me to release my source. So, I don't release the source for viewing, modification, or anything. Is my project "open source"? You will probably say no (otherwise why bother having the words?). So, I will march along, never showing anyone the source, but claim my project is "open source", without explictly explaining to everyone what my definition of open source is. Maybe you ever buy my product and *assume* that if you asked for the source I'd show it to you. I won't. Yay for me. I get to look like a good guy without every having to be one.

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[jon_anderson_ca]

How about we let the industry sort his out, like it's currently doing, and quite successfully to boot?

The point is, they're not. The OSI deals with companies that slap "Open Source" on products that really aren't. Such companies try to benefit from the "Open Source" buzz without actually being open source.

It's like a company using the terms "Fair Trade" or "ISO 9000". I'm sure that ISO 9000 opens doors in the B2B market, but if the term isn't policed (and people can call themselves ISO 9000 Certified without an actual certification), it loses all meaning and value.

Re:Open Source is a specific kind of software

[trifish]

Long ago, OSI decided to abandon registration of "Open Source" alone, in my opinion on bad advice from their then legal counsel.

Any half-decent lawyer would tell you that it is impossible to get a trademark for something that refers solely to quality, features, class, sort, or attributes.

For example, you cannot trademark the phrase "big red" and than control its use to describe features of different products from different sources.

Officially: "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods."

Open Source != Free Software

[sfarmstrong]

Open source is about exposing your code to the general public. This enables third-party developers to more easily analyze and make use of your software. It enhances the academic community's ability to experiment with, research, and just generally make "fair use" of software.

Free software is about exposing the intellectual property contained within the code - the copyrights and patents attached to the code. It enhances the public's access to software, and hence their ability to take full advantage of their computers. More importantly, it prevents waste. For example, can you imagine the extra cost to the economy if every developer had to implement public key cryptography from the ground up?

Free software implies open source; open source does not imply free software. Please, let's not confuse the two. It would be wonderful (and arguably sensible) if Microsoft made its code open source. It would be absurd for Microsoft to release its copyright of said code.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[AusIV]

It bothers me when people (OSI and FSF) try to redefine words to further their agenda. I'm a huge fan of Free and Open Source software, but it bothers me when RMS tries to claim he gets to define "Free". Opera is "free", Trillian is "free", Adobe Reader and Flash are "free". It doesn't cost a dime to get any of them. They may not be FSF approved "Free", but RMS can't tell their vendors not to call them free.

Same goes with Open Source. VBulletin is "Open Source" in that anyone who buys it gets the source along with a non-disclosure agreement (that said, I don't believe they advertise themselves as open source). While it may not be OSI certified, one group can't declare that "Open source" means everyone and their mother has access to the source.

Nobody gets to arbitrarily redefine words that have been around for generations. Claim that something is not "OSI Certified" or "FSF Approved" rather than claiming "it's not open source" or "it's not free". We'd be furious if Microsoft tried to redefine "secure" to include something about being proprietary and went around telling free software projects they couldn't claim to be "secure". Microsoft is welcome to create their own seal of approval, but they don't get to arbitrarily redefine words, and neither should we.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[strider44]

The restrictions for open source include Free Redistribution and allowing derived works. You seem to be implying that Shared Source is an open source license, which is wrong. You should really read the Open Source Definition if that is what you're implying.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[Hatta]

You are just being obtuse. There is a real difference between free as in beer and free as in speech. We are just unlucky that in english they share a word. Think of libre vs gratis in latin. RMS has to specifically define his words because our language fails us here.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[ilithiiri]

The problem with English is that "free" is used both to mean "free of charge" and "free to use"..

In other languages, there are separate words for those meanings, and that's why Frenchs call software from the FSF "Software Libre", Italians call it "Software Libero", and do not use the "gratis" word (which means free of charge), which is instead used for freeware (software which is free as in "gratis", free of charge).

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

>More importantly, it prevents waste. For example, can you imagine the extra cost to the economy if every developer had to implement public key cryptography from the ground up?

Wrong.

Free Software is about everything you said in the first paragraph, for sure, but it is not about reducing waste. It is about locking software into a community and preventing people from taking it out of that community. There have been many times personally I have had to re-implement functionality found in free software products in my own company's proprietary software. I'm not complaining or trolling, it's their right and I'm fine with it, but that is certainly a waste of productivity, so please do not claim that Free Software is about productivity :} It's only about productivity if you're part of the community.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[Ekarderif]

Of course, Stallman had to hijack our definition of "free" to correspond to his beliefs, ignoring the fact that "freeware" existed before him.

He could have easily chosen something less ambiguous, like "Freedom Software" or "Liberty Software". But no, RMS chose "Free Software" specifically because it is vague, which it wasn't since we have used free as in gratis for awhile already.

It's not a problem with English; it's a problem with his ego.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[squiggleslash]

The major difference between free software and open source is the difference between "scent" and "odor" (apologies for the example, I don't mean that pejoratively against either term.) Nominally, the two are synonyms, but the promoters of each are careful to emphasize the subtexts and nuances of their preferred term.

Free software is, effectively, a shoring up of intellectual freedom based upon the right and duty to freely share information. Open Source is a cool software development model that's way better than traditional proprietary development because it makes use of cooperation between otherwise competing developers, and it is only possible through the the right and duty to freely share information.

The right and duty to freely share information are constants, but the nuances are different.

I've heard people re-invent the terms believing pseudo-pragmatism is at the heart of Open Source, but usually they seriously misunderstand the mindsets of the people they talk about. For example, use of copyleft licenses is often seen as a "Free Software" thing, because the FSF (and RMS in particular) invented the GPL. However, the GPL is more likely to be useful to a project whose founders are supporters of an open source development model mindset, as it acts as an equalizer and encourages the creation of a development community. Some free software advocates, notably Theo DeRaadt, are strongly anti-GPL, believing it undermines intellectual freedom.

It's nuances, not technical definitions, that make up the differences between the two terms.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[ratboy666]

"Of course, Stallman had to hijack our definition of "free" to correspond to his beliefs, ignoring the fact that "freeware" existed before him."

Let's examine this. The term "freeware" was coined by Andrew Fluegelman in 1982. Richard Stallman started GNU in 1983. GNU Manifesto is dated 1985. So, yes, you are correct "Freeware" existed before RMS.

But... "Freeware" was a trademarked term.

In 1979, RMS was already mulling over "freedom in software issues". A quote from that time: "the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity."

So the answer to the question: Did RMS hijack the term "freeware"? No, "freeware" was a trademarked term. Yes, Fluegelman used the term "free" in relation to software one year before GNU, and 3 years before the GNU Manifesto. No, RMS was thinking about free and software freedom in 1979, 3 years before Fluegelman coined "freeware".

So, twist it any damn way you want.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[alexgieg]

Correct. In Portuguese we have the words "livre", meaning free from restriction (for example, when a prisoner is freed, we say he's "livre"), and "grátis", meaning free from cost, from were comes the derived word "gratuito", meaning that which is free from cost. Thus, freeware translates to "software grátis" or "software gratuito" (both are used and have the exact same meaning), while free software translates directly to "software livre" and free software movement becomes "movimento do software livre". It's all pretty straightforward, and I believe other Latin languages are similar.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[Hatta]

What do you mean "our" definition of free? Free means both libre and gratis. Nobody's hijacking anything here. Free software just rolls off the tongue better than libertarian software, and the parallels to Free Speech, etc, give it nice connotations. You can talk about free software being a right more easily than libertarian software. And besides, everyone knows what freeware means so what's the problem?

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[sfarmstrong]

You should really read the Open Source Definition if that is what you're implying.

Perhaps I should be clearer. My problem with equating open source with free software is that the words "open source," on their face, do not disclose anything about the underlying intellectual property. When I hear open source, I think of a developer allowing customers and competitors to see what's "under the hood." Customers are able to evaluate the vendor's products at a much more intimate level. Researchers can test and develop the ideas embedded inside the code. I can hardly blame a software company for using a different definition of "open source" than the one proposed at opensource.org; it's not dishonest - just an honest difference in opinion about what the term means.

I also want to emphasize that the need for the "non-free, open source" distinction is meaningful on a practical level. Let me give a concrete example. I once applied (unsuccessfully) to a company called RapidMind that produces middleware for multiprocessing systems. The company came out of the University of Waterloo. In order to attract the best and brightest, the computer science faculty at Waterloo allows its professors to keep intellectual property on their research. RapidMind in turn has an interest in keeping its source code open to the academic community, and its library is freely available online.

But it's not just the acadamians who benefit from the open distribution. Developers who want to experiment with the library are free to do so before they decide whether or not to purchase licensing rights. The economy at large benefits from being able to freely experiment with the library, and RapidMind gets wider recognition and the wider range of customers that comes with it.

Note that RapidMind still gets to hold on to its IP in this model.

The words "open source" intuitively mean the open distribution of source code. It's a fully-formed idea that stands on its own merits. The open distribution of intellectual property is a separate idea; it is a different solution to a different problem, and I submit that it needs a separate name.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[chrismcb]

I don't understand this argument. Pretty much by definition Open Source == Free Software. One of the tenents to Open Source is you have the right to modify and redistribute the software. Why would it be sensible for Microsoft to release its source code? If you can't rebuild the software, then what is the point. Oh sure, you could make a few changes yourself, and rebuild it for YOU. But since Microsoft retains the copyright you can't share your changes (I suppose you could release your diff) but you wouldn't be able to redistrute the finished product. So how is it sensible? As far as the whole reuse thing, there are things called libraries. You can use these libraries without the source code.

If it works this way..

[dgr73]

..why not the other? I'll trademark "Closed Source", "Proprietary", "Confidential" and "Copyrighted". We'll see who'll bleed out of which orifice then.

Oh dear, oh dear...

[spungo]

Talk about delusions of grandeur... the arrogance of this individual! I could understand it if he was upset by organizations that were saying they used an OSI-approved licence, when they clearly didn't, but that's not it -- this person is assuming the role of arbiter supreme of what constitutes an OS licence. It's people like him that the corporate world shake their heads at, thinking "Sheesh -- them Open Source geeks are a bunch of whackos".

Re:Oh dear, oh dear...

[LingNoi]

It's people like him that the corporate world shake their heads at, thinking "Sheesh -- them Open Source geeks are a bunch of whackos

Would these be the same corporates that are stealing open source code and selling it for a quick buck? Or would this be the other corporates that are pretending their product is "open source".

Its like the term Hacker. It used to mean someone who would "mess about with code" but the media has diluted the term so much it now means a computer criminal.

Did you really want the same thing to happen to the term "open source"? If someone reviewed a piece of software in the news and said it was open source then I would assume that I would be able to edit and redistribute the code without fear of a lawsuit.

This shouldn't change and I am sure everyone here agrees with me otherwise whats the point in calling it open source. Let just call it "Look at source". You can look at it but thats ALL you can do.

Badgeware is the problem

[Bruce Perens]

Badgeware, software that requires that you place a badge on your web site, is the problem. SugarCRM is one of the offenders.

In composing the Open Source Definition, my aim was that there would be NO legal burden upon users at all. A user should be able to put OSI Certified Open Source software on a computer and go, without reading the license. That's one reason the OSD prohibited the then-popular "Educational Use Only" provision. Requiring the user to perform something - like transmit an advertising badge - is similarly unacceptable because it would place a legal burden on the user.

In practice, issues like patents and even Sarbanes-Oxley create a legal load for some users, but that is not under our developer's control. We had a license back then that imposed an attribution-related legal load on distributors: the original Apache license required attribution in some advertising. It was awkward, there was no way to implement it automatically, and it would have presented a scaling problem if hundreds of authors required attribution in - for example - an operating system distribution's advertising. The community eventually convinced Apache to drop the advertising provision.

That old Apache license has obvious parallels to more current "badgeware" proposals, but badgeware isn't a new issue for Open Source. Almost a decade ago, I reviewed the first Zope license for SPI. Zope's original submission required a web badge. I convinced their investor, Hadar Pedhazur, to make that a nice request rather than a requirement. Most people honored the request. The GPL contained an attribution provision, and still does. OSD was written to fit GPL. But the burden of the GPL's requirement was only upon developers, and it was the minimum necessary amount of attribution to communicate the author identification and the fact that the user had rights.

A developer can be especially irked when someone else labels that developers work as his own. But protecting that developer's business and taking the commercial value out of such relabeling does not require attribution. It could be done using any share-and-share-alike (GPL-like) license that closes the ASP loophole. But it's still fair for a developer to want to be attributed. I think the minimal practical goals for attribution are:

1) The developer should be able to find it.
and
2) The developer should be able to show to others.

This does not mean that the developer should require others to blow his advertising horn. Some companies already use attribution that isn't visible unless you are looking for it - it's embedded in HTML comments. In contrast, the draft Affero flavor of GPL 3 closes the ASP loophole by implementing the minimal necessary requirement for a developer to preserve a visible message informing the user of their rights. The visibility is to implement a separate goal of FSF: that users appreciate their rights and learn to demand them. Should OSI approve this new Affero license, or should it ask that FSF - rather than demanding a direct channel to users, search for that information and present the result on its own sites?

Bruce

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[TheNicestGuy]

Thank you, Bruce. Like many here, I was trying to figure out what Tiemann found so objectionable about SugarCRM's license. Being based on the Mozilla Public License, it looks very much like a lot of open-source licenses out there. It took a while to spot the "badgeware" clause hiding down at the very bottom:

However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org./ In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarcrm.com/

And suddenly that's no longer open source, because "open" doesn't just mean you can see it. It means you can use it and modify it for any purpose you want, including making new software for distribution, without jumping through hoops. As a developer, that's always been my understanding. This is "available, but branding-encumbered" source.

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[tepples]

Badgeware, software that requires that you place a badge on your web site, is the problem. SugarCRM is one of the offenders.

[...]

In contrast, the draft Affero flavor of GPL 3 closes the ASP loophole by implementing the minimal necessary requirement for a developer to preserve a visible message informing the user of their rights.

How is this visible notice of copyright in a program's output not a "badge"?

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[smelroy]

Thank you Bruce. Someone needed to explain the situation a little better.

I've seen this problem for a while from my experience with SugarCRM. They use a modified Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 (SugarCRM Public License) that requires attribution with a logo on the bottom of every page. This was not the case initially but when SugarCRM was at version 1.5 a company used the Open Source license to create their own product (vTiger CRM) and it pissed off the people at Sugar so they changed the license. Now on the vTiger homepage they advertise with "Tired of kinda, sorta Open Source? Get the honest Open Source: vTiger CRM". SugarCRM isn't really Open Source. They are just profiting from using that term.

I am glad OSI is cracking down. These companies are misleading consumers into thinking they have certain freedoms because their software is "Open Source" but it really isn't. Oh, and don't give me that crap about you can define Open Source however you want. Open Source needs to have a concrete definition or it means nothing. Companies like SugarCRM are damaging that definition. If everyone got to define Open Source it would have no definition.

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[Aladrin]

Wow, check that out. GPLv3-licensed software is not 'Open Source'. Since it doesn't allow the use on devices with DRM/etc, it creates a legal burden every bit as much as 'badgeware' does.

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[Bruce Perens]

How is this visible notice of copyright in a program's output [Affero 3 licensing] not a "badge"?

Well, first it's not a logo on your web page. It's a command, somewhere in the program, that causes the program to tell you how to get its source code by giving you a URL or something, and of course the source has to be at that URL. That fixes the "ASP loophole" that allows people to modify GPL software and keep the changes private if they never distribute. And that command has to be visible to the user, in a menu, or as one link in the entire site rather than a badge on every page.

All of that said, I'm still not sure that OSI should certify Affero 3. Sorry, Henri. I am not on the OSI board, so I won't be the one voting. I should be on that board, but that's another story. But I'd still like to hear arguments about Affero 3 and OSI certification, so that I can get it straight in my own head.

Bruce

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[soulhuntre]

Wow, check that out. GPLv3-licensed software is not 'Open Source'

Yeah, but you knw the OSI will bow down and change their rules to allow the GPLV3 in. There is way too much RMS ass to kiss to ever defy him. Hence why the OSI idea as some sort of guarentee against legal issues is completely impotent.

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it does. Did you get modded interesting as in 'interestingly odd opinion'?

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In which clause of the GPL3, exactly, "doesn't allow the use on devices with DRM/etc"?

From what I understand of the Tivo issue, it only disallows using DRM to make source code useless to the user.

If GPL3 didn't allow even *running* it on a device with any DRM, then you couldn't run any GPL3 programs on most recent proprietary operating systems, on an iPod or most other MP3 players, on several recent Intel processors, and so on. Needless to say, I don't believe that is the case.

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[Just Some Guy]

In composing the Open Source Definition, my aim was that there would be NO legal burden upon users at all.

Bruce, the last thing that bugs me about the GPLv3 drafts is the idea that if a GPLv3'd web application has a "download source" link, then users can't dike out that link. Wouldn't that disqualify v3 as an Open Source license for pretty much the exact same reasons?

I mean, this seems like a pretty good apples-to-apples comparison. In either case, a web application wants to include invariant parts and still be Open Source. So, am I missing an important distinction, or do you have the same concerns with GPLv3?

Re:Badgeware is the problem

[Bruce Perens]

if a GPLv3'd web application has a "download source" link, then users can't dike out that link.

Actually, they can. But they still have to provide some way visible to the user that will provide the source. That might be another link, or it might be that you "diked out" HTTP entirely and your new version runs SMTP. If it runs SMTP, you would need the SMTP "HELP" command to say something about the "SOURCE" command, and the "SOURCE" command would have to work.

That said, I'm still not sure I'm for certification of Affero 3.

Thanks

Bruce

So are you saying that there ...

[iknownuttin]

may be one day an organization called: "OSIAA" - Open Source Initiative Association of America ? An they'll go around filing lawsuits against people who don't deserve it?

Just wondering. I need another cup of coffee.

Re:So are you saying that there ...

[another_fanboy]

An they'll go around filing lawsuits against people who don't deserve it?
They will file lawsuits against those who steal the code...

Re:So are you saying that there ...

[dintech]

They will file lawsuits against those who steal the code...
I know, we need a sort of DRM for open source. Maybe we could, like, make the code less understandable and viewable with a disassembler or something. That would show them. Oh wait, that's what a compiler does... :P

Re:So are you saying that there ...

[Kalriath]

Some of the OSS code I've seen is already not understandable!

Open Source branding has value - let's save it!.

[Bruce Perens]

The problem is that if nobody enforces standards for the "Open Source" brand, then anything, whether or not it even includes permission to modify the code or redistribute it, will be called Open Source. OSI acts to certify that software conforms to the Open Source Definition. This definition is available for anyone to read and craft a license to fit it. However, we certainly don't need more licenses - there are so many now that the combinatorial problem causes developer pain.

Bruce

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

First, they are all "let's forget the philosophy, and be pragmatic: we want the market to love us."

That worked so well, that the market adapted the "open source" meaning just to add value to their products. Wasn't that what the OSI dudes wanted from the start? If they don't feel comfortable with the way the "open source" term is being used, they only have themselves to blame.

The term

[MuLaNLaNg]

To me, the term "Open Source" has just as much potential to evolve as the software that takes it's name. Like the software the users and developers are the ones who will mold the term to fit what they are trying to accomplish.

More than just seeing

[Bruce Perens]

open source = you can see the source

Sigh. I imagine you use some of this Open Source software sometimes. Please try to get your head around the fact that it would not be possible for such software to exist and for folks like you to benefit from it, unless it was developed. And it would not be developed without a developer community, and that community would not be able to do their work unless they had the right to modify and redistribute the software. Thus, Open Source must be more than just visible source code - it has to include the right to distribute and modify, and it also needs the right for you to use it. So, that's 4 things - source, use privilege, distribution privilege, modification privilege and there's a bit more. Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source, and OSI uses that Open Source Definition to classify licenses. It is not an arbitrary thing.

Bruce

Re:More than just seeing

[CowboyBob500]

Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source, and OSI uses that Open Source Definition to classify licenses. It is not an arbitrary thing.

Maybe I've missed something, but can you explain exactly where you and the OSI get the authority to define what the words "open source" mean?

Bob

Re:More than just seeing

[Bruce Perens]

can you explain exactly where you and the OSI get the authority to define what the words "open source" mean?

How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority. And I helped to build a community behind it. And IMO, that community has a really strong interest in making it clear that anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.

Bruce

Re:More than just seeing

[CowboyBob500]

Sorry, but I don't recognise yours or the OSIs authority in this matter. Also, I agree with the grandparent, open source to me means that the source code is available, nothing more, and nothing less. The term does not define that certain freedoms are available with the source code, indeed it cannot given that even under the OSI approved licenses those freedoms vary wildly. In essence, the only constant I see amongst even the official definition is that the code is available - therefore that is what the term means to me (and I assume most other people outside of the "community").

Bob

Re:More than just seeing

[ClosedSource]

New words are created all the time, but that doesn't imply any kind of ownership or control over the definition.

Re:More than just seeing

[Bruce Perens]

Well, it doesn't really sound like you've read the official definition, because it gives you several freedoms that are stated clearly and are beyond the simple availability of source code.. And I sure hope that not many people share your sentiment, because then "Open Source" will mean nothing and we will have handed a victory to Microsoft for no good reason.

Re:More than just seeing

[nojomofo]

Bruce, I hope that OSI has better legal arguments than "I took the authority" if it expects to have any legal backing to this effort.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Official" definition? I think that's the problem people are having with this: you (and your organization) aren't the "official" definers of phrases.

Re:More than just seeing

[Rycross]

Mr. Perens, given that definition, what is the difference between Open Source and Free Software? I think I'm missing something obvious.

Re:More than just seeing

[joe 155]

Surely open source can still have a use, even if it doesn't contain the right to modify. For example if I really like some software and am happy with the way it works (and also don't have the technical knowledge to be able to add new features) then I'll be happy with it as it is; even if it is more static than you seem to want. What would be good to know is that it won't be installing a ton of crapware and key loggers onto my computer when I install it. If it is open source then we can be sure that it won't (so long as at least someone who "the community" (whoever that actually is) trusts has looked through it).

So open source as defined above would give an important and useful right, it would act as a strong bond of trust, and would allow people who have searched for bugs to submit them to the developers to seek changes... but the project would be centrally controlled.

I don't seem to see how Microsoft is winning if people expect to be sure that their programs are not acting in a traitorous way - when we all know Windows has been calling home for years. This is the very diversity that "open source" will need to finally win the battle

Re:More than just seeing

[Rycross]

The argument is that he doesn't believe that OSI has the authority to define Open Source, and thus he doesn't view your definition as the official definition. In the absence of a trademark, the official definition probably defaults to whatever the community at large believes open source to be.

I remember Linus catching flak for trademarking Linux, but it looks like he's vindicated now.

Re:More than just seeing

[drinkypoo]

How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority.

The problem with this idea is that the word "Open" already had a meaning within the computing community. It did not mean "you have the right to freely distribute". It meant that specifications and in some cases source code were open, and that interoperability was not only welcome but encouraged through this sharing of information.

So a lot of us, myself included, object to this redefinition of the term. It's not like Open didn't mean anything to the computing community before.

Your attempt to railroad the meaning of a word is no more appealing than any other.

By contrast, the term "Free Software" is acceptable [to some people, including myself] because free-with-a-capital-F is subtly but meaningfully different than free-without-a-capital-F, and the difference is emphasized daily.

The fact that the somewhat widespread use of the term "Open" predates the OSI substantially weakens your position, IMO.

Mind you, it's not that I don't appreciate the positive things the OSI has done for me. That's not what I'm saying. I am stating only that I resist this unnecessary and inconsistent alteration of the meaning of the word.

Re:More than just seeing

[Bruce Perens]

What you are talking about is "Disclosed Source Code". It already has a name. It also has a problem. Companies go out of business. And then you get a situation where nobody can fix it.

Bruce

Re:More than just seeing

[Hatta]

What makes your definition the official definition any more than anyone else's? If you try to sue someone who's inappropriately using the term, a judge is going to ask you the exact same thing. You're going to need a better answer than "we got there first".

Re:More than just seeing

[Bruce Perens]

I contend that the only difference between Open Source and Free Software is how we promote them. Open Source is promoted to business, Free Software talks about Freedom first and is more a priori. RMS is almost agreed with this as of two weeks ago, he says that the licensing is 99% the same and he acknowledges that the campaign to differentiate Free Software from Open Source is ended and doesn't matter.

Bruce

Re:More than just seeing

[Rycross]

This also pretty much falls under Microsoft's "Shared Source" definition, doesn't it?

Re:More than just seeing

[quentin_quayle]

"Open Source" is a generic descriptive term and as such not eligible for trademark protection when used for its generic descriptive meaning. Trademark law does not allow monopolizing ordinary language terms. That is probably why OSI abandoned its application.

The fact that it would be beneficial to the cause of OSS or other political arguments are irrelevant. You don't get to monopolize a term unless it departs from ordinary language, either in the term itself not coinciding with a generic term, or in being used for something that would never ordinarily be described that way.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're allowed to believe this. And OSI (as far as I know) doesn't have any legal authority to tell people how to use the term "open source". But no one else has some trademark on the term either, and people do follow the OSI definition. OSI does have the right to say: "Hey, look at these asshats! They call this program open source, and the user can't even modify the source." and get people into a big fuss over the company lying about the software being open source. Sorry, but having source available that the end user isn't allowed to touch, modify, or redistribute, is not open source even if you want it to be.

Re:More than just seeing

[jon_anderson_ca]

open source to me means that

I'm sure that, to somebody out there, "open source" means "drowning kittens in a bathtub". This is why society agrees on common definitions for words.

Very few people even heard of the term "open source" until Linux was in version 2.0. People like Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and the folks at Red Hat created the buzz around open source (though RMS really, really doesn't like the term), so let's use the definition that they were working with at the time.

Without the freedom to modify and re-use, there would be no open-source buzz, because there would be no GNU, no Linux, no BSD, no Red Hat, no Debian, no Ubuntu.

Oh, but people could drown kittens with wild abandon and call it whatever they want.

Re:More than just seeing

[Rycross]

I should also note that I believe that the OSI definition of Open Source is a good one, and I'd like to see it become the de-dacto official definition, a la Free Software. I also think there is more support in the community for an OSI Open Source definition than the slashdot discussion lets on.

Re:More than just seeing

[cparker15]

open source to me means that the source code is available, nothing more, and nothing less

You can interpret the term however you wish, but that doesn't change its definition. Bruce Perens coined the phrase “Open Source Software” as a business-friendly synonym for the phrase “Free Software”. The Open Source Definition, also written by Bruce Perens, is the definition of the phrase he coined. What you're talking about isn't Open Source by the very definition of the term.

The word “toaster” has a specific definition. It's a device that makes toast. If you decide you want to change your definition of “toaster” to match the definition of “fish”, that doesn't magically turn all toasters into fish.

I think the term you're looking for is “Viewable Source” or “Read-Only Source”. Regardless of what you decide to call it, it's all proprietary, and Open Source Software is software that's not proprietary.

Many people consider qmail to be an Open Source program because the source is viewable by anyone who wants to view it and because the program doesn't cost anything. However, it's not Open Source. From qmail.org:

qmail is not open source

In case you're wondering, qmail is not open source, and does not qualify for use of the OSI-Certified trademark. Other programs which Dan Bernstein licenses similarly, including djbdns, ucspi-tcp, and daemontools, are also not open source. For a program to be "open source", you must be able to, among other things, change the source and redistribute it. DJB prohibits distribution of modified code and so programs which are so-licensed are not open source. Other code written by DJB has been placed into the public domain. Public domain code is unlicensed, and it qualifies for use of the OSI-certified trademark.

It is true that the source code is viewable for qmail. However, qmail is still a proprietary application. Not Free Software. Remember, “Open Source Software” is a synonym for “Free Software”. If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.

Re:More than just seeing

[cromar]

I'm with Bruce on this one. "Open" means more that visible.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

OSI = whatever Ms. Cooper tells OSI to do

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not it has a problem is beside the point. And so for that matter is "handing a victory" to a software company (what on Earth has this got to do with Microsoft!?). What we're discussing is the fact that OSI are taking a word that is accepted to have one meaning, and turning it into another.

Open source means "You can see the source", nothing more. It's a physical rather than legal characteristic. Hijacking it to mean something else is silly and fruitless. Please don't turn into the next ESR.

Re:More than just seeing

[Afecks]

I think your community needs to relearn its own definition. Open means, exposed, visible, not obfuscated. Every possible use from whenever until now points to the word open meaning "you can look". When you go to an open park, does that mean you can start digging holes and build your own swing set or does it mean you can simply walk in and look around with no cost?

The word your looking for is "free" as in freedom. FLOSS, F/OSS or whatever you want to call it is not the same as "open source". It seems to me that you suddenly don't like the burden of adding the "Free" part and want to monopolize a phrase that has classically always been used in another way. Nobody is confused about open source, it's open, you can view it, there is nothing misleading about that. There's also other licenses that do exactly the same thing that an OSI license will do but it's simply not approved so it's not "open source". Yet, it is...

Re:More than just seeing

[nomadic]

Sigh. I imagine you use some of this Open Source software sometimes. Please try to get your head around the fact that it would not be possible for such software to exist and for folks like you to benefit from it, unless it was developed. And it would not be developed without a developer community, and that community would not be able to do their work unless they had the right to modify and redistribute the software.

And this right existed, and was used, for years before either the "open source" term was used, or the OSI came into being.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Bruce,
Firstly, thanks for your work. We all benefit greatly in the community from it. As for the "open source" definition, I think RMS would say something about your use of "freedom", not once in the OSI definition does it say "freedom". ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ) That's what makes it such a crappy definition imho. He can probably explain it better than I can, but I imagine him saying something like "they've taken from open source what always could be taken". And they can't take that from free software. Ask him...I'm not good at explaining things. But I imagine he would explain it well. reply to this if you do ask him.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

        * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
        * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
        * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
        * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(Sources: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html )

Regards,
Anonymous Coward

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

"we will have handed a victory to Microsoft for no good reason."
Isn't that just a lovely bit of FUD?
What I don't think you understand is we don't want a dictator even a benevolent one saying what Open Source is or isn't. If you don't own the trademark on Open Source then you have no legal right to do anything. For the most part we are adults and know what is Open Source what is closed Source and can decide when it is in our best interest to choose one or the the other. I published my first Open Source program over 20 years ago except I called it public domain. There was no GPL then but I heard about RMS's idea that giving away your source was a good idea so people could learn from it and improve it. I don't like you thinking that I must follow your ideas so you can protect me from the "Evil" Microsoft.

Frankly your last post raised a lot of red flags for me. It reminded me of a line from an old song, "And the things that they fear are a weapon to be held against them."

Re:More than just seeing

[suv4x4]

How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority. And I helped to build a community behind it. And IMO, that community has a really strong interest in making it clear that anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.

Bruce, my friendly advice to you, is don't waste your time explaining all of this on Slashdot (check my sig). They simply won't understand where the phrase "open source" originated from, even if you repeat it non-stop until you're blue in the face, since they just now the current, more generalized meaning of the phrase.

It doesn't matter what they think, however, since what matters is the current meaning. No company even got its lost trademark back, and the fact OSI has a very noble cause doesn't change that simple fact.

Let's face it: open source will never mean again what it meant in the beginning. What OSI needs, is a new phrase, and to apply your original definition to THAT phrase. And then, they better work hard on keeping that one, or the situation will end up just like last time.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

>Bruce Perens coined the phrase "Open Source Software" as a business-friendly synonym for the phrase "Free Software".

Big fat hairy deal. The term open source (no pretentious capitalization) is not owned by anybody.

>If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.

No one Cares, except for a few Open Soreheads.

Re:More than just seeing

[nomadic]

They simply won't understand where the phrase "open source" originated from, even if you repeat it non-stop until you're blue in the face, since they just now the current, more generalized meaning of the phrase.

The term "open source" did not originate with OSI.

Re:More than just seeing

[suv4x4]

So a lot of us, myself included, object to this redefinition of the term. It's not like Open didn't mean anything to the computing community before.

Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. The phrase wasn't in common use today.

It's hard to accept that, since you were probably still peeing your pants at the time OSI came into existence, but it's the fact of life. That they lost control of the phrase and it became generalized later on, is a completely different issue.

Re:More than just seeing

[wolverine1999]

Who says your recognition is required?

Bruce's recognition is enough!

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

not be possible ... unless they had the right to modify and redistribute the software

If a developer is concerned about their rights to modify and redistribute, then shouldn't they license it under a specific license with a defined meaning and recognised meaning such as GPL or BSD?

I do recognise that you're a big cheese in the linux world, but your post sounds a lot like when people get upset about commercial software getting written on linux, or BSD code being used in commercial operating systems. You choose your license, you live with the consequences. Some of us license our software with the intention of it being abused, 'stolen', changed, redistributed for profit, etc.

Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source

Well, so what if you did? That means nothing. Something that has a clear, non ambiguous name such as "The GNU General Public License" or "The FreeBSD Copyright" has meaning. I can write software, and explicitly say that it is licensed under one of these. Saying "Hi, my name's Bruce Perens and this is my opinion on what the term 'Open Source' means" does not carry any authority at all.

Re:More than just seeing

[wolverine1999]

OSI Invented the term, thus that makes it official.

Plus open source means NOTHING without being able to redistribute modified code!!!

It would be closed source! Open source Closed source!

Re:More than just seeing

[wolverine1999]

You should learn your history lessons better. HE ORIGINATED the term Open Source itself, so your argument falls flat on its face.... sorry! hehehe

Re:More than just seeing

[Gregg M]

The term "open source" did not originate with OSI.

Care to explain why you believe this?

Re:More than just seeing

[nomadic]

Care to explain why you believe this?

No problem.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

No one Cares, except for a few Open Soreheads.

Bob .... Dammit Log in like everyone else!

Re:More than just seeing

[huckamania]

I've been around computers my entire life and have never heard the term "Disclosed Source Code". Sounds like something IBM would say back in the 70s. Disclosed? As in not closed? As in open?

It's almost like the Scottish royal motto, "No one treads on me with impunity". Where impunity means without fear of reprisal. So the the Scottish motto really means, "One treads on me with fear of reprisal", which doesn't sound nearly as sharp.

If you and yours were smart, you would realize how very close you are to victory and stop with the childish infighting that is only serving to bolster the other side. "Open Source" might be your ball. If it is, you're free to take it home with you at any time. Just remember that you're not the only one playing, you don't own the playground and there are other kids that have balls too.

I feel the same way about GPLv3 and the GNU tool chain.

Re:More than just seeing

[nomadic]

Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. The phrase wasn't in common use today.

They didn't. Caldera used the phrase when they opened up DR-DOS back in 1996. And they used the phrase to mean the same general idea.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trademark law does not allow monopolizing ordinary language terms"

Unless you're big and rich like Microsoft, then you get to trademark names like Windows, Word, Paint, ...

Re:More than just seeing

[bill_mcgonigle]

Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. The phrase wasn't in common use today.

It's hard to accept that, since you were probably still peeing your pants at the time OSI came into existence, but it's the fact of life. That they lost control of the phrase and it became generalized later on, is a completely different issue.

That's not what he's arguing - he arguing that the term Open had meaning around that time, diluting the uniqueness of the term 'open source'. The X/Open consortium, OSF/1, OpenGL, OpenDoc, etc. I assume you remember those days?

Re:More than just seeing

[mdielmann]

I recall an article on /. years ago (and am not inclined to find it for someone who can't leave his name) where the BSD License was described as "open but not free". Note that RMS makes a point about "free software", and started the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Foundation. He also has the issues you've raised about Open Source vs. Free Software, but he's aware that they're different terms.

Re:More than just seeing

[cyberfunkr]

How do you think new words happen? People define them.

I don't consider "open" or "source" to be new words. They've been around for quite some time. They are well defined. Instead, what you are doing is perverting existing words to a new/different. Just like "gay" used to mean happy and now it's become a slur, trying to change "open source" to also include an 'approved' license is very pretentious. Should we also change the definition of a computer from "an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations" to "an electronic device running a Microsoft OS designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations"?

History is full of people that took authority... Very rarely did it really help.

Re:More than just seeing

[Gen.Anti]

Wikipedia says OpenDOS is proprietary, and it only had disclosed source until they took it back link

BTW 1: Despite being named OpenDOS.
BTW 2: tabs originated with NetCaptor!!1!

Re:More than just seeing

[nomadic]

Wikipedia says OpenDOS is proprietary, and it only had disclosed source until they took it back

But the point is they used the term before OSI "invented" it.

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

They really ought to pull http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-t he-point.html then, would you not agree?

Re:More than just seeing

[falconwolf]

that anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.

Again who gives the OSI the right to define what "open source" is? Open source existed before the OSI ever did.

Falcon

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22disclosed+source +code%22

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890 for "disclosed source code". (0.04 seconds)

Re:More than just seeing

[falconwolf]

Wikipedia says OpenDOS is proprietary, and it only had disclosed source until they took it back link [wikipedia.org]

Try this: Open BSD or any of the other BSDs. BSD existed before the OSI did.

Falcon

Re:More than just seeing

[Bruce Perens]

Falconwolf, I really assure you: no brand "Open Source" existed before we created it. There were one or two uses of the words together, they didn't go anywhere, and anyway "prior art" doesn't work for trademarks as it does for patents. There is usage in another category for defense intelligence information. Did you know that "X" is a trademark? But surely, someone used "X" before it was filed :-)

Re:More than just seeing

[Anonymous Coward]

If the company goes out of business then people using it will abandon it. Just because you CAN use and modify the code doesn't mean you have the means or resources TO take over support. For most companies software is just a commodity, if they no longer have the support on it then throw it away and move to something else.

Re:More than just seeing

[drinkypoo]

How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority.

Bruce, I'd like to pin down precisely when you claim you defined (some would say redefined) the meaning of the phrase "Open Source". I haven't found any information yet on when that supposedly occurred. I ask because of two pieces of data I have located. One of them is an october 1996 press release from Caldera in which the phrase "Open Source" is clearly used to describe the conditions of release for Caldera OpenDOS. ESR Claims that the term was invented in 1998. And in your own document entitled The Open Source Definition you state the following:

"The Open Source Definition started life as a policy document of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution. Debian, an early Linux system and one still popular today, was built entirely of free software. However, since there were other licenses than the Copyleft that purported to be free, Debian had some problem defining what was free, and they had never made their free software policy clear to the rest of the world. I was the leader of the Debian project, at that time, and I addressed these problems by proposing a Debian Social Contract and a Debian Free Software Guidelines in July, 1997."

This leaves the question somewhat up in the air. If you first sought to define the term in the DSC and/or DFSG in 1997, then clearly you are a latecomer to the party. And if you did this thing in 1997, or even earlier, why does ESR claim it happened in 1998? Is it the truth, rivalry, or ignorance? I have no particular reason to believe ESR over yourself (and one or two reasons not to, but let us put those aside for the moment) and thus I am only seeking clarification.

ESR actually goes on to mention you in his document which places the event in 1998:

"Linus Torvalds endorsed the idea the day after that first meeting. We began acting on it within a few days after. Bruce Perens had the <opensource.org> domain registered and the first version of the Open Source website up within a week. He also suggested that the Debian Free Software Guidelines become the `Open Source Definition', and began the process of registering `Open Source' as a certification mark so that we could legally require people to use `Open Source' for products conforming to the OSD."

Would you please do us the courtesy of clarifying these issues? I realize that I may becoming across as rude or obsequious, but please believe that finding out the truth so that I can steer people correctly is more important to me than being right, or you being wrong.

Re:More than just seeing

[dougmc]

Very few people even heard of the term "open source" until Linux was in version 2.0. People like Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and the folks at Red Hat created the buzz around open source Yes, they created buzz, but people were giving away software and it's source code even before RMS, Linus and RedHat came on the scene.

Even the term `open source' is older than Linux. (The FSF and GNU are older than Linux, of course.) Usenet searches are often useful in determining when a term came into vogue. For example, This post from 1990 says that the NSA used the term `open source' pretty much like it's meant today in 1987. This post in 1990 talks about BSD's open source policy. Or This post from 1985 talks about an open source work, though it's not specifically about computers.

As I see it, the OSI's grip on the term `open source' seems awfully tenuous, and so I'll define the term as I see fit, and as I see it, it means that the source code is readily available. Freedoms are a nice bonus, but they're not part of the term `open source'.

Re:More than just seeing

[dougmc]

Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. No, he didn't. I found people using the term in Usenet as we use it today as early as 1990, and references to earlier uses as well. More details.

Re:More than just seeing

[jon_anderson_ca]

the NSA used the term `open source' pretty much like it's meant today in 1987

Actually, "open source" means something entirely different in government lingo.

I can, however, see your point.

Re:Open Source branding has value - let's save it!

[_Hiro_]

Then why not just make an "OSI Approved" logo, and license the logo to only be used in conjunction with software that is completely under an OSI Approved License? Then the OSI can associate said logo / "OSI Approved" mark with "Open Source" through conferences and other marketing...

Because, honestly, if the OSI claims that my Java projects from my Data Structures classes (Which are Kopylefted, per Discordian whim) are not Open Source, I would be rather offended.

Either that or make the Open Source license list Open Source, so we can all check in any nominated-and-seconded licenses. Otherwise Open Source as a whole just became closed.

translation

[jb.cancer]

In his blog post, OSI president Michael Tiemann writes: "Enough is enough. Open Source has grown up. 'We just realized how much money is in there.'

Now it is time for us to stand up. I believe that when we do, the vendors who ignore our norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label." 'Now it is time to exploit it and make some quick bucks. And when we do, people who ignore us will get sued and start running away towards the other (m)$ide. What better time to confuse people with FUD!'

Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software

[Bruce Perens]

When I wrote the Open Source definition, Richard Stallman approved of it (in a private email) as "A good definition of Free Software". He has not written his own definition at that time. Free Software and Open Source are both names for the same thing - software licensed a particular way, and the only way they differ is that they talk about it in a different way - Open Source is a campaign directed toward business people, Free Software is not. Even RMS agrees with me on this now (we were on stage in Italy two weeks ago talking about this) although he will of course always want to be identified as a Free Software person because he feels it's most important to talk about Freedom. Once upon a time Eric Raymond did try to differentiate Free Software from Open Source, and he tried to deprecate RMS in general. That was a mistake and does not matter any longer.

Bruce

It's my app, I'll license it how I want

[dbmasters]

I have developed open source web apps, have managed the projects and such...I call them open source and likely will be doing so again, and I will license (or not) my application however the hell I want to (or not at all)

Re:It's my app, I'll license it how I want

[TheNicestGuy]

I call them open source and likely will be doing so again, and I will license (or not) my application however the hell I want to (or not at all)

If you market an application and describe it as open source, but you don't at the very least offer the source code to be viewed by anyone who asks, that's a good candidate for misrepresentation, which can get you in front of a judge. The stand-alone term "open source" may have yet to be rigidly defined by the courts and/or the FTC, but that doesn't mean it means whatever you want it to mean.

Re:It's my app, I'll license it how I want

[dbmasters]

My work has all been simple procedural scripting that is completely uncompiled and freely editable...yes, I will license it however I wish...it is the truest form of open source. I will do with it what I please, market it how I please and license it how I please.

Re:It's my app, I'll license it how I want

[Anonymous Coward]

the short answer is: you're an asshole.

if you "don't license your app at all", then it falls under the default copyright restrictions; ie no one can use it for anything.

the creator of something authorises people to use it through a license. if you don't choose any license at all, you're not authorizing anyone. pretty simple.

Re:Open Source branding has value - let's save it!

[_Hiro_]

(And yes, I know the OSI has said logo. I was trying to point out this is already taken care of, but then realized the sarcasm might have gotten lost in translation.)

OSI wtf

[jshriverWVU]

Not sure what their argument is. If vendor means creator then why would they have to use a license approved by the OSI? Authors are free to use whatever license they want. If they mean vendors who use open source software (Tivo, Linksys) why should they be forced to stick a label on each item "Linux approved" like people do with "Intel Inside" or "Designed for Windows Vista".

It's all marketing crap. When it comes to a hardware device or commercial package using FOSS, all I care about is if they re-release the code changes in source form.

as far as many people are concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

Software where the source code is freely available for inspection, such as Microsoft's MFC and ATL, can be considered "open source".

The OSI license certification program is useful, but let's face it - it's controlled by a single organization whose goals and metrics change over time. They should not be ceded ownership to an expression that has entered the public domain.

While we are at it...

[mpcooke3]

I get really annoyed by a lot of people who claim they are called "Matthew".

So here's what I propose: let's all agree-- citizens, press, governments, and others shall use the name 'Matthew' to refer only to people who I have granted an official MPC-Approved license and follow the official MPC approved "Matthew" practices.

Otherwise, let's face it just about any plonker could call themselves Matthew, and we really don't want that.

Yours,
Matthew.

Re:While we are at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the word "Matthew" appears to have been in common use for the last few thousand years, and thus there is no reason why you should be allowed to claim it as a trade mark.

Yours,
Matthew.

Re:While we are at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this get +5 Insightful?

"Matthew" is a name, not a qualification. If people claim they are called "Matthew" who aren't, there's at worst a little confusion, just as there's no problem if two programs have the same name. For example, I've used systems that had two "grep" commands, with slightly different interfaces. Annoying, but that's all.

A qualification doesn't say who you are, but what features you have. If there was a guy who claimed to be named "Matthew" and to be a Qualified Scuba Instructor, but wasn't, then you've got a big problem (and not with his name). I think that's called fraud. Nobody cares if you use a pseudonym (lots of people do); but if you claim to be something you aren't, in order to extract money from people, we (socially and legally) frown on that.

If you don't know the difference between a name and a qualification, well, then I've got a kick-ass web browser to sell you. It's not open-source, but it's called "Firefox", and we all know that's the name of a kick-ass web browser.

- Matthew
Qualified Scuba Instructor

House and cloths

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source is like my home, and licensing my clothing...

OSI, who are you and why are you in my pants!?!?!

                      (doffing my cap to the old zen master)

The "Real" mark for dairy products

[Omnifarious]

When all kinds of vendors were marketing fake cheese as cheese, the dairy industry got together and made up the 'Real' mark. I don't see this as anything different. I'm really happy with the 'Real' mark for dairy products, and I'm similarly happy with that sort of a mark for software products. If nobody decides that Open Source means something in particular, soon it won't mean anything at all and will be a completely useless word as applied to software.

Today it happens to be the irritating and not hugely awful problem of badgeware. Tomorrow it will be some vendor that attacks something more fundamental like free redistribution.

So, I'm happy the Open Source Initiative has taken this stand. It's the right thing to do. It's easier to monitor the reputation of one organization than it is to monitor the reputation of thousands. So we can all decide for ourselves if the OSI suddenly decides to refuse the use of the trademark to random companies that really are Open Source.

Re:The "Real" mark for dairy products

[Russ Nelson]

Here, here! Now here's a fellow who understands the value of the name "Open Source".

Re:The "Real" mark for dairy products

[_Hiro_]

I have no problem with this line of thought.

But note, that the American Cheese Product Slices you purchase that is lacking the "Real" logo still says "Cheese" in big letters (with "product" tiny underneath.)

My main beef with the whole thing is that "Open Source" is a semi-nebulous term (despite OSI's definition thereof), and while I have no qualms with them refusing use of the "OSI Approved" logo, for them to declare outright what can and can't call itself "Open" is like forcing Kraft to relabel their primary product as "American Curdled Oil Slices (with cheese-like flavor)"

Re:The "Real" mark for dairy products

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this analogy is that the best cheese on the market notably does *not* have any US dairy industry consortium labels on it. The only thing "Real" is good for is distinguishing between disgusting imitation cheese and disgusting manufactured dairy cheese. Indeed, going to a market today, it seems that the "Real" label is only used for cheese products that could easily be confused with fake cheese (mainly kid's lunch cheese). A more useful label would be "Good", but as with Open Source, the definition of such is ethereal.

Thus, what will likely happen if OSI manages (somehow) to legally define "Open Source" is that, generations down the line, you're going to end up with a lot of crappy "Open Source" code that nobody cares about, while some of the best and most prominent open source licenses will exist with or without OSI's approval. So what's it worth?

Re:The "Real" mark for dairy products

[E 99]

When all kinds of vendors were marketing fake cheese as cheese, the dairy industry got together and made up the 'Real' mark. I don't see this as anything different.

The difference is that "open source" already has a meaning (or rather multiple meanings) specifically pertaining to the licensing of software. It doesn't matter who originally coined the term -- it now a widely-used term with a specific range of meanings in the software community. Therefore no one has the right to regulate its use. If OSI wants to coin a new term, and trademark and regulate that one, it's free to do so.

Re:FOSSies throw a tantrum

[WED Fan]

FREE... YOU AREN'T LOSING MONEY IF SOMEONE SUPPOSEDLY RIPS YOU OFF. It's free

How dare you, sir?

Why, that smacks of almost the same argument of copying music, "I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, so if I download the .mp3 its not like the record companies and band are going to lose money on it."

How dare you turn the argument back on itself. The nerve. The gall.

(Damn, I wish someone would come up with a tag.)

You make two mistakes here

[Russ Nelson]

You make two mistakes here. I speculate that the first one, expecting a registered trademark, comes from you being European. In Europe, trademarks are granted by the government. In the USA, trademarks are granted by use, and merely recognized by the government.

Your second mistake is to think that the law is everything. The market has a say in this matter as well. People expect "Open Source" software to have all the rights required by the Open Source Definition. If they don't, they will be surprised and confused. It's never a good idea to surprise or confuse your customers ... because they go to your competition.

Re:You make two mistakes here

[AusIV]

To the contrary I am an American, and I am fairly familiar with our IP laws. While a registered trademark isn't necessary to defend a trademark, it would hold a lot more weight if OSI wanted to take this to court. Regardless of whether or not the trademark has been registered, it has gone unenforced for years, so I can't imagine it's still valid.

On the second point, I never thought the law was everything, but the point is that OSI can do very little to keep a company from claiming to be open source. While consumers may get irritated and look for OSI certified software instead, a company is not inaccurate to claim their product is open source if, for example, they make the source available to the end user under a non-disclosure agreement.

Re:You make two mistakes here

[Russ Nelson]

OSI can do very little to keep a company from claiming to be open source....
.... a company is not inaccurate to claim their product is open source if, for example, they make the source available to the end user under a non-disclosure agreement.

Except that you have business practices to deal with. If a business mis-represents its product intending to profit, that's fraud. If a business claims that its software is Open Source, yet consumers expect software licensed under an OSI-approved license, and don't get what the business represented, that's fraud.

We've been continuously using the mark in commerce since June of 1999. We stopped actively claiming it to be a trademark, true. That would hurt us in court. Yet we have continued to act as if it were a trademark, we have continued to use it as a trademark, and the public largely recognizes it as a mark associated with a quality under our control (approved licenses).

Re:You make two mistakes here

[CoderBob]

Except that you have business practices to deal with. If a business mis-represents its product intending to profit, that's fraud. If a business claims that its software is Open Source, yet consumers expect software licensed under an OSI-approved license, and don't get what the business represented, that's fraud. I wasn't aware that "Open Source" required OSI-approval, and I've been a user of open source programs for years. I'm looking into releasing some programming tools as open source, but with all of this legal clamoring I might have to make sure to pick a non-OSI approved license as a method of protest- maybe create an "Anti-OSI Open Code License". /me removes tongue from cheek.

More seriously, I ask: If anyone should be defining what is or is not open source (without the pretentious caps), it should be a standards body: perhaps ANSI or ISO? What authority does the OSI have except that given to it by the community (who seem fairly divided on this issue, judging by /.)?

I strongly disagree with the public largely recognizes it as a mark associated with a quality under our control (approved licenses).. John Q. Public has no clue about open source still. Open source is not mainstream enough for that, and I wonder about your logic in saying that consumers even know what on earth you are talking about.

Promote the logo all you want, promote the use of approved licenses and continue to promote the use of the seal/logo as a method of advertising products with approved licenses, but leave the phrase "open source" alone.

Re:You make two mistakes here

[falconwolf]

People expect "Open Source" software to have all the rights required by the Open Source Definition.

You might but not everyone uses OSI's definition of open source. I certainly don't, though I've been using the term "open source" for years it's only been recently I learned the OSI came up with their own definition of it. For instance BSD is an open source license however it does not meet the OSI's definition.

Falcon

Re:You make two mistakes here

[gonzopancho]

Feh. "Open Source" is a marketing term promulgated by Eric Raymond in order to distract people from Free Software.

As ESR put it, it was a "cold blooded exercise in re-branding" in order to change the message from Software Freedom to a business model.

That is all.

As such, Open Source will always be an excuse-to-be-unfair.

Re:You make two mistakes here

[Russ Nelson]

but leave the phrase "open source" alone.

Why? We invented it, we defined it, we told people about it, we promoted it, it's our trademark. That's like me asking you to stop calling yourself CoderBob because of all the people named Robert who call themselves Coders. It's a completely absurd idea.

By the way, the law doesn't give a trademark holder the right to stop people from using a trademark accurately. So when you describe your open source software as Open Source, you are only telling the truth. You don't need our permission to tell the truth (thank God!)

No, they're the same thing; always have been.

[Russ Nelson]

Really, I'm flabbergasted by people's attempted repositioning of Open Source. It has *always* been a better name and better positioning of the SAME STUFF. Open Source is Free Software without the confusing two English meanings of "Free". Open Source is Free Software without St. Ignucius's religion and moralizing. The FSF says that you're unethical if you hoard your software. We (the OSI) don't judge you that way.

A tale of two programs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us say that you have two programs, foo which is open source and used 90% of the time, and bar which is closed source, used the other 10% of the time and complimentary to foo.

If both of these programs are sold and marketed as a single product is it fair to say that the product is open source? Of course, it depends on what foo and bar do (if for example bar is necessary to use foo). Apple's "open source" kernel + unix apps as opposed to Aqua is another example (no, the numbers don't quite line up).

Re:FOSSies throw a tantrum

[thegnu]

"I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, so if I download the .mp3 its not like the record companies and band are going to lose money on it."
Are you saying that because I downloaded "Hit Me Baby One More Time," Britney Spears shaved her head? I doubt it.

Even if copyright infringement were stealing (which it's not), would it be ok to steal from someone who stole the same item from someone else? Would it be ok to steal from the Mafia, considering that theft is their business? Please read this article by Steve Alibini.

I'm not sure you're not being facetious, though. So if you are, pardon me.

Open Source shouldn't equal open source

[johnny cashed]

It seems to me that there is Open Source, and there is open source. If the source code is available, it should be called open source. If it falls under the umbrella of OSI's requirements, then call it Open Source. Frankly, I feel they are fighting a battle of semantics, and maybe should trademark a name that can be less confusing.

Interesting??!! Nice Try Clever Lad

[asphaltjesus]

The parent post is very manipulative to the point of sowing seeds of confusion. Hang on a minute while I adjust my tin foil hat....

why should they force companies to stick to a license
Because if they don't, it's very easy for an asshat abusing whatever the OSI wants to enforce to tell a Judge, "Your honor, they have never enforced anything, so I'm allowed to abuse it." I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the OSI *must* enforce or the courts will allow asshats to sodomize whatever the OSI is attempting to protect. Tivo's founders are a good example of asshats that have "stolen" code in a novel way. Look up tivoization on the wikipedia if you don't believe me.

isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software
Whipping out the "all authority sucks" and pasting it on the OSI is a special kind of very manipulative doublespeak.

The OSI encourages new ideas and services making them available to all and preserving intellectual freedom. The typical for-profit corporation is steadfastly opposed to those ideals and does everything they can to squelch Freedom.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

I'm shocked by all the negativity

[psykocrime]

I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here. This is a *great* thing. It's ridiculous for people
to take advantage of the term "Open Source" to market their products, while shipping something that isn't actually Open Source. And yes, I understand that some people quibble over whether or not the OSI definition is *the* definition of Open Source or not... hell, I may have argued that point myself in the past. But pragmatically, the OSID is the closest thing we have to a universal definition of what it means to be open source, and it's a good definition.

Let's hail this move as a good thing, to help prevent confusion in the market. SugarCRM, etc. shouldn't be going around
calling their stuff Open Source when it's not. Let them use a different term like "Source Available" or "Smart Source" or "Elephantine Lipitrude" or something, whatever.

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here.

This is Slashdot. Most people here would rather die than stop bitching.

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but what about the people who market their product as open source (without the capitalization)? Open is an adjective: by one definition, it can mean (in the context of Computer Science) "in a file that can be accessed". Thus open source would be source code that can be accessed. Why should people not be allowed to use the adjective that way?

Should be allow someone to trademark "Anonymous Coward", meaning someone who makes really insightful comments but ensures that it is fundamentally impossible to identify them, and then complain that Slashdot uses "Anonymous Coward" to refer to people that (given enough careful network monitoring, warrants, etc) might be identified?

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[DogDude]

SugarCRM, etc. shouldn't be going around calling their stuff Open Source when it's not.

Why not? Let the market sort it out. Forcing people to comply with the Open Source (tm) guidelines is absurd. It's not freedom. It's OSI's definition of freedom, which by definition, is not free. Kinda like George Bush's version of "Freedom" means "killing a sovereign nation's citizens until they capitulate to the US military".

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[pngwen]

I think the problem is not in setting out a clear definition. The problem is that OSI is assuming authority that no one has given them. A lot of people are in this community because they abhor that kind of authority. By simply declaring "We're in charge, this is what Open Source is" the OSI has become what it has beheld. That's why so many of us are upset. It's all about the arrogance of OSI and has nothing to do with being adverse to the prevention of market confusion.

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[petrus4]

I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here.

The negative reaction is very simple to understand. Most people here do not want to see the OSI being relevant or authoritative in any way, but simply wish for the FSF to be the sole arbiter of the definition of FOSS, and/or the ability to enforce said definition.

Personally, I think that sucks. The OSI allow for a far more inclusive definition, with a broad plurality of licenses. Of course, in the minds of FSF fanboys, that's exactly the problem; they think the GPL is the only license with the right to exist. They're going to seek the outright destruction of any organisation which tries to promote an idea contrary to that.

What does my opinion matter, though? I'm just a troll; someone else opposed to the FSF juggernaut who therefore, in the minds of its' cultists, also needs to be erradicated, or at least silenced. Hooray for freedom.

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[Rycross]

Of course, in the minds of FSF fanboys, that's exactly the problem; they think the GPL is the only license with the right to exist.

That would be odd, since the FSF definately acknowledges and approves of many other free licenses, such as the BSD license.

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[PitaBred]

"Where do you want to go today?" Let's let the market sort it out, free-for-all with trademarks, source code and everything. Because that's worked for us SO well in the past. If OSI enforces "Open Source" to mean "I can see the source with no unknown strings attached", I'm all for it. Otherwise you get all kinds of crap riders with Open Source, so it will no longer be a meaningful phrase (see "dilution of trademark"). Do you really want the words "Open Source" to mean nothing? The same kind of connotation as "Shareware"?

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[fsmunoz]

The negative reaction is very simple to understand. Most people here do not want to see the OSI being relevant or authoritative in any way, but simply wish for the FSF to be the sole arbiter of the definition of FOSS, and/or the ability to enforce said definition.

All the comments focus on the fact that OSI != "open source". Please provide any supporting evidence that concerns the FSF in this (especially funny since the FSF dislikes the term "open source" and never uses it).

Personally, I think that sucks.

Well, then don't worry any longer since the reason for your sulking only exists - as usual, unfortunately - in your head. Let it go and be happy.

The OSI allow for a far more inclusive definition, with a broad plurality of licenses.

Any specifics? All the generally used licences are considered free software by both. Others aren't simply present in the FSF site. Curiously the Apache Licence 2.0 is in both sites as free software, but OpenBSD doesn't think so. Perfectly within their right, but I'm hoping that you'll take this opportunity to warn all slashdoters about the "zealotry" of the OpenBSD "fanboys", that lack your beloved "inclusive definition" of "open source".

Of course, in the minds of FSF fanboys,

Oh my, wasn't expecting that one.

that's exactly the problem; they think the GPL is the only license with the right to exist.

Provide any reference to support this. Do visit the FSF Licences site, where they say, amongst other things, that "...If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice...". Also, for extra points, provide a similar statement from any BSD site, just to see their "inclusive definition" of licences (again, doesn't bother me and completely within their right).

They're going to seek the outright destruction of any organisation which tries to promote an idea contrary to that.

Now your delusions assume an epic scale, with total destruction. I would repeat the "provide supporting evidence" mantra, but when one reaches this point all bets are off.

What does my opinion matter, though? I'm just a troll;

Can't disagree with you there.

someone else opposed to the FSF juggernaut who therefore, in the minds of its' cultists, also needs to be erradicated, or at least silenced.

Ahh... now I see. By "silenced" you mean "made to actually support the completely ridiculous statements he makes". In your bubble world you shouldn't be called up on you complete BS, because it's an attempt to "silence" you, made by the "cultists" of the "FSF juggernaut". Well, just to make you wake up screaming at night I've updated my /. email to the FSF member one. I just hope you don't start seeing me stalking you or something.

Hooray for freedom.

Indeed. Freedom to say your, er, opinions, and freedom to actually give them any supporting substance. You seem to love the first, but fall short on the latter.

Re:I'm shocked by all the negativity

[rmdir -r *]

Seconded- Open Source as a term was invented by ESR, who founded the OSI, so why shouldn't they be able to trademark it?

Where'd all the Libre people go, anyway? It looks like only Perens is carrying the torch.

I have a question about releasing software....

[manowar821]

Say I write a program that I want to share freely and distribute as open code (anyone can do anything they like with it). What would that be called? I don't want any "official" license, I just write it, and distribute it my own way. Is that bad? Is someone going to bring the hammer down on me for not applying for an open source or closed source license? Why should I care? Just a couple thoughts. I never cared about licenses, really.

Re:I have a question about releasing software....

[Anonymous Coward]

>What would that be called?

The "source-code-included-but-its-not-Open-Source-now- stop-hurting-me-Bruce-arrrrgh" licence, obviously.

Re:I have a question about releasing software....

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd still be licensing it, using a licence which had text along the lines of "You can do anything you like with this."

You can call this "open source". Working through the requirements:
1) You're not restricting users on how they can redistribute it, either by cost or by what they can bundle it with.
2) You're giving away the source code for free, and not preventing people distributing the source code.
3) You're not stopping people producing derivative works, and your licence doesn't stop them applying your licence to these works.
4) You're not requiring people to keep your work unchanged, and allowing distribution of derivative works...
5) You don't discriminate against people. Anyone can use your code.
6) You don't discriminate against fields of endeavour: Anyone can use your code.
7) You've extended your licence offer to everyone, so anyone the code is distributed to can use it under your licence, so ok.
8) You don't restrict your code to be tied to a particular product.
9) You don't place any restrictions on other software.
10) Your licence is technology neutral.

Thus you may legitimately refer to your program as "Open Source".

Exercise for the interested reader: check that the GPL actually meets the official definition.

Re:I have a question about releasing software....

[Kalriath]

GPL failes item 9, and MAY fail 5 under some circumstances (I can not think of any, there may not even be any, but I believe this is the case). On the upside, it doesn't prevent you making nuclear weapons with it like iTunes does.

Quote from Wikipedia

[johnny cashed]

They [the Palo Alto strategy group] used the opportunity before the release of [Netscape] Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word "free" in English.

And in doing so, introduced ambiguity and confusion of the word "open". They replaced one problem with another.

Start here: Open Cascade claims to be open source

[Anonymous Coward]

Start here: Open Cascade claims to be open source, but isn't:

Open CASCADE Technology is software development platform freely available in open source. It includes components for 3D surface and solid modeling, visualization, data exchange and rapid application development.

Open CASCADE Technology can be best applied in development of numerical simulation software including CAD/CAM/CAE, AEC and GIS, as well as PDM applications.

The Technology exists from the mid 1990-s and has already been used by numerous commercial clients belonging to different domains from software edition to heavy industry.

The platform is provided by the Company bearing the same name Open CASCADE S.A. For its clients the Company offers custom development and technical support services. For more information on the Company please visit www.opencascade.com

But this isn't an OSI approved license: Open CASCADE Technology Public License (version 6.2) This company has been abusing the definition of "open source" for years. A shame really, as the software is very nice.

Re:FOSSies throw a tantrum

[WED Fan]

I'm not sure you're not being facetious, though. So if you are, pardon me.

We need tags for <falseindignation> and <facetious>.

Oh, honestly.

[stonecypher]

This sort of nonsense really bothers me:

We (usually Russ Nelson) would send them a notice politely telling them "We are the Open Source Initiative. We wrote a definition of what it means to be open source, we promote that definition, and that's what the world expects when they see the term mentioned.

I've been using the term "open source" since before the GPL or Linux existed, and I disagree with their definition. I release things under licenses that fail arbitrary clauses in their definition by being too liberal - I don't make several of the asinine restrictions their supposed "definition" requires me to make, such as the GPL source redistribution clause.

If I ever get a mail suggesting from these asshats that their Johnny Come Lately interpretation of a phrase that predates them by more than 15 years should be used as trump over my source which is open, then frankly I'll plaster their letter all over the web with a nice thick layer of mockery added.

This is the fundamental problem with GPL. None of this effort is useful. Pulling products because some jerk with a website disagrees with the way the company used the source is counterproductive. I'm not saying it's not the author's right to control their source how they see fit; please don't waste time pretending that's what I said. This is a very "I may disagree with your license, but I'll defend to the death your right to shackle yourself to stupidity" kind of situation - use the GPL if you want, but it causes enormous problems.

What I actually said, flamesuit on, was that the GPL encourages counterproductive, factional and aggressive behavior that does nobody any good.

MIT and BSD licenses forever.

Muddying the waters - "commercial open source"

[twasserman]

The message of the OSI is that "Open Source" has a specific meaning and that people who want to use the term for commercial marketing purposes should offer their software under a license that complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition. Their approach is not really very different from that of the Scotch Whisky Association, which protects the use of the term "Scotch whisky".

The OSI is focusing on companies that call their products and services "Open Source" when that is not really the case. Here are four examples where that can happen: 1) a company will release the source code for a product (under its own "non-approved" license), but will keep a more complete version of the product closed, releasing the product only in binary form under a traditional commercial license; 2) a company will start with open source software available under a BSD license, then close the product (permitted under the license) and release their product only in binary form under a traditional commercial license; 3) a company will start with open source software and use it to build a "Software as a Service" application available only as a web-based application, with no source code distribution at all. Most of the companies offering SaaS web applications avoid the use of "Open Source" to describe their services, so this example applies only to a small number of offenders.

I don't think that the OSI has any intention of going after people who put their non-commercial projects up on Source Forge (or some other forge). For those who do so, it's a good idea to associate an OSI-approved license with your work so that others who might want to use your software can be comfortable and secure about the terms and conditions under which it can be used.

Re:Muddying the waters - "commercial open source"

[soulhuntre]

The message of the OSI is that "Open Source" has a specific meaning

Playing bullshit games with the capitalization does not make the mark unique. The simple reality is that the terms "open source" were in common usage long before the OSI and the GPL and make sense with out their approval or butt kissing.

The OSI wants to build a brand? Go for it. Give out "OSI Approved" stickers. Give out "Bruce likes it!" stickers or "Stallman Approved!" logis. Whatever... but tryign to use ommon terms int his way is just stupid.

Works for me...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I could see people playing dirty tricks with the definition of "open."

For example, what if the source-code was available, but if there was a (steep, and likely unpayable) fee attached to it. Is it still open, or is it closed-source with the open to purchase source-code?

Still, I think that the main concept should be that: if you're buying a software product, don't just rely on the words "open-source," but rather find out the specific situation and terms of the source license.

Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software

[Shambly]

I'm sorry but are you seriously this conceited. If you believe you own the right for anyone to call their software open source you are sadly mistaken. You didn't write THE open source definition you wrote YOUR open source definition. People do not have to agree with you. The use of open and free to describe the kind of software people want to write was a poorly chosen one to begin with. The terms are very confusing when people hear free they usually think free as in beer. Which is why it was changed to open source. The problem with your arguments is that the freedoms associated with open source are defined by their license so that some open source projects are more open sourced then others. BSD licenses are much different then GPL licenses. I don't see why any organisation needs to take control of what is allowed to call itself open source. Like any software you have to read the license and see if you agree with the terms their. If you don't like the terms don't buy the software. Don't use semantics to force an unescessary check to buy from your foundation.

Re:Open Source branding has value - let's save it!

[nomadic]

The problem is that if nobody enforces standards for the "Open Source" brand, then anything, whether or not it even includes permission to modify the code or redistribute it, will be called Open Source.

Then the problem is something you're just going to have to live with, because outside of advocacy there isn't much you can do to "enforce" the standard. And honestly I don't see where OSI has the moral authority to enforce THEIR standards in the first place.

Another who obviously hasn't read the definition

[stevenj]

I release things under licenses that fail arbitrary clauses in their definition by being too liberal - I don't make several of the asinine restrictions their supposed "definition" requires me to make, such as the GPL source redistribution clause.

Um, sorry, but you obviously haven't read (or at least, haven't comprehended) the definition. Neither the OSI definition of "open source" (or, for that matter, the FSF definition of "free software") requires you to make any restrictions in your license, much less GPL-like restrictions. The definitions only prohibit license restrictions more than a certain amount, but say nothing about less restrictions.

I hope the fact that you have obviously built a passionate position on top of ignorance and falsehood causes you to go back and re-think some of your opinions.

thats not OSI

[Anonymous Coward]

OSI it's a progresive rock band, why would they get into open source stuff?

new name

[xchapter7x]

how about we change the term to socialized source ... are you with me comrades? :)

Open Source Definition ..

[rs232]

"I've been using the term "open source" since before the GPL or Linux existed, and I disagree with their definition. I release things under licenses that fail arbitrary clauses in their definition by being too liberal - I don't make several of the asinine restrictions their supposed "definition" requires me to make, such as the GPL source redistribution clause"

What licenses are more 'liberal' than the equivalent OSI license? Give specifics. By what logic is a coda that prevents the redistribution of code less restrictive that one that allows unfettered redistribution? Give examples of these other licenses with less 'restrictions'.

"This is the fundamental problem with GPL. None of this effort is useful. .. use the GPL if you want, but it causes enormous problems"

Could you give us some examples of these 'enormous problems'?

- quote -

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

2. Source Code

3. Derived Works

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

7. Distribution of License

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

*10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

- unquote -

was: Re:Oh, honestly

Scilab has been flouting OSI for years

[stevenj]

The article claims that this is a new problem:

I have been on the board of the OSI for more than 5 years, and until last year it was fairly easy for us to police the term open source: once every 2-3 months we'd receive notice that some company or another was advertising that their software was "open source" when the license was not approved by the OSI board and, upon inspection, was clearly not open source. [...] Most of the time they would say "Oops! Thanks for letting us know--we'll promote our software in some other way." And they did, until last year.

But what about Scilab, which on its home page prominently claims to be The open source platform for numerical computation (and has been doing so for years)? Scilab clearly does not qualify for the (widely agreed-upon) OSI definition of "open source", because the license prohibits commercial redistribution of modified versions. And yet I've never heard of an OSI campaign to pressure Scilab to either change its license or stop calling itself "open source". As a result, there are many examples of people who have confused Scilab's license with the usual definition of "open source".

Re:Scilab has been flouting OSI for years

[herbierobinson]

Um from what I can see, Scilab has been providing open software since 1994. That would be 4 years before OSI even existed. So who is flouting who? Not to mention that the term "open" has been in use for decades to describe just about anything in the technical domain...

In my opinion, "open source" is a generic term, not anybody's trademark. The USPTO would seem to agree. If they expect to actually enforce anything, they better go for "OSI Certified", because "open source" by itself is just a generic term. Of course, they can still bully people with less money to go along with them just like the large corporations do. [Does anybody really think "windows" is not generic term?]

The Scilab example points out a huge problem with the OSI's personal definition of "open source", BTW. The point of Scilab is to provide a shared standardized environment for collaborating applications. If they allow anyone to modify the code willy-nilly, there is no standardized environment and the sharing can't happen. This is a case where the developers need to retain control for the good of the user community and the OSI model doesn't allow for that.

Re:Scilab has been flouting OSI for years

[stevenj]

Um from what I can see, Scilab has been providing open software since 1994. That would be 4 years before OSI even existed. So who is flouting who? Not to mention that the term "open" has been in use for decades to describe just about anything in the technical domain...

According to the Internet Archive, Scilab only began calling their software "open source" in 2004, well after the "open source" term had been popularized for software by OSI with a specific meaning that people trusted (cluetrain: the older uses of the term "open source" were primarily for non-software). It sure looks like they were trying to exploit this popularity, even though the result ends up being deceptive because they don't grant the same freedoms that people have come to expect from "open source" code.

The Scilab example points out a huge problem with the OSI's personal definition of "open source", BTW. The point of Scilab is to provide a shared standardized environment for collaborating applications. If they allow anyone to modify the code willy-nilly, there is no standardized environment and the sharing can't happen. This is a case where the developers need to retain control for the good of the user community and the OSI model doesn't allow for that.

Sorry, but this old myth about FLOSS software being vulnerable to forking of incompatible versions has been debunked over and over again. (Think about it for a moment: if this were really a "huge problem", the same thing would have popped up for Python, Perl, PHP, and every other standardized language popularized by free software.) As long as the original author maintains the software and keeps it free/open-source, any incompatible forks will be ignored.

Crack down on Scilab

[Digana]

Excellent. I hope this carries through. Scilab is one app that labels itself as open source but fails to meet the open source definition, because it doesn't allow commercial distribution of derivatives. I hope it gets smacked in the butt for being the non-free tool it is.

Lots of anti-OSI comments

[AlXtreme]

... and these surprise me. I've been seeing a lot of "Open Source" products that forbid redistribution, or only allow their source to be used for non-commercial projects. This is simply incorrect/dishonest marketing, but unfortunately the OSI can't go after these people because the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked. Microsoft can call their "Shared Source" license Open Source, and we couldn't do a thing.

The problem here is ambiguity of the term "Open Source", similar to equating "Free Software" to freeware. Lets just ditch both, and call our software "Freedom Software" instead. Should go fine next to those Freedom Fries.

Re:Lots of anti-OSI comments

[Vexorian]

"Freedom Software"

I died a little.

From Title 15, USC, AKA US Trademark Law

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe I've missed something, but can you explain exactly where you and the OSI get the authority to define what the words "open source" mean?

Trademark law. You might want to look it up some day, but it grants the legal authority because they first came up with the term. I wonder if it hasn't become somewhat generic by now, but that's a legal worry and it's not mine.

The point of this would appear to be to avoid more crap like the "Office Open XML" which has nothing to do with Open Office and isn't really "open" in the sense many people might expect. Or at least to avoid people calling licenses "open source" that are anything but. To be honest, I'd have said that they'd do better to register free software as a mark, but that's just me.

In any event, trademark law really can give them that right. Period. End of story.

See also:
* http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html
* http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Trademark_Law

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Re:From Title 15, USC, AKA US Trademark Law

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I am trying to square your statement with others, other people said that Open Source isn't a registered trade mark. Without that trademark, there is no control, making your point moot.

Re:From Title 15, USC, AKA US Trademark Law

[CowboyBob500]

Trademark law. You might want to look it up some day, but it grants the legal authority because they first came up with the term. I wonder if it hasn't become somewhat generic by now, but that's a legal worry and it's not mine.

I'm from the UK. US trademark law does not apply here. Here you have to actively register a trademark. They haven't. Therefore I, personally, do not recognise that mark.

Bob

Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

If you asked me before I read this article, I'd have said that "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" are different things. I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but I would have expected most people to agree with me.

"Free Software", with a capital 'F', I would take to mean something licensed under either the GPL or the LGPL (or something else with RMS' blessing). "Open Source", I would take to mean any software where the source code was available for no charge. Period. So, for example, FreeBSD would be Open Source, but not Free Software. So would software such as Allegro, which has a 'public domain' style license.

Re:Start here: Open Cascade claims to be open sour

[maxwell demon]

But this isn't an OSI approved license: Open CASCADE Technology Public License (version 6.2) This company has been abusing the definition of "open source" for years. A shame really, as the software is very nice.

I'm too lazy to go into the details of the license. Which of the ten rules does it violate?
Or is it just that the license doesn't have the "approval stamp"?

Saint Bruce

[huckamania]

We should think about building this guy a cathedral. He's so great and I completely agree with his definition of Open Source from 15 years ago and also all of the redefinitions since then. He's not the pope people, he's just a saint, so he's not infallible. I'm sure I'll also agree with any of his future redefinitions as he hunts out the apostates amongst the true believers.

Is there a tag for "you become what you hate"? Maybe there should be.

Re:Saint Bruce

[Vexorian]

You failed terribly when putting that up, your paragraph just sounds lame and confusing instead of delivering the impacting statement you wanted to deliver. The part about the tag barely makes the sarcasm noticeable, please try harder next time.

Re:Saint Bruce

[huckamania]

I will use tiny words from now on. Sorry for the confu... er... misco... ah... to hell with it.

Bruce and Richard should both be flattered. You only get detractors after you have made an impact. Not that I am a detractor, per se. I just think it is ironic that there are these very opinionated people who love to champion freedom and openness.

It's not nearly as ironic as the UN Committee on Human Rights, but it is good for a few laughs at least a few times a week.

Deceptive advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

You can block ports, prioritize packets, redirect failed DNS lookups and still call yourself an internet service provider.

You have a better plan?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article calls for the community to stand up and defend a useful definition, and the author decides to lead by setting an example. This is a good thing.

When I go to the store and buy "orange juice" I don't want to have to worry about who owns a trademark on "orange juice" and whether they are reliable etc. etc. A system like that would be really stupid, actually. I want to know that there is a community and some standards in place about the term "orange juice" and that if some jerk wants to "redefine" sugar water and artificial coloring as "orange juice", a large community and (if absolutely necessary) a large, well defined standards-enforcement body is going to say "That's not orange juice. Call it something else."

Restrictions create freedom

[spun]

Sorry, that's reality. You want psychopaths to define what kind of freedom they get? Because I think they might have a different definition, one that involves liver, fava beans, and a nice chianti. Every freedom entails a concomitant loss of freedom. You give up the freedom to murder if you want to be free from the threat of murder. You give up the right to just walk about anywhere if you want the freedom to own private property. You give up the right to just take whatever you see laying about if you want the freedom to own personal property. And so on. This is so basic that I can only believe that your lack of understanding is deliberate.

Same thing with open source. We are giving up some freedoms in order to protect greater freedoms. That is the nature of freedom. I know you were trying to be a clever troll, but you just come across as someone who doesn't think things through. You have to actually understand something before you can successfully make fun of it. Oh, and OSI is not GNU.

Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I believe Eric Raymond's efforts still matter to this day, no matter how friendly Richard chooses to be about your clarification. As with your "common law trademark" argument, the adoption of "open source" under Raymond's terms has resulted in a "common law interpretation" that makes Free Software a subset of Open Source but not the reverse.

In the minds of the majority of people familiar with the term as applied to software, "open source" means merely that the code is available for review. And nothing more.

It's called a TRADEMARK

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're going to need a better answer than "we got there first".

More like "we own the trademark" -- same reason you can't sell "Nike" shoes. Although the actual situation is slightly more complex than that, the trademark is still the crux of it.

Re:It's called a TRADEMARK

[Hatta]

Except that "Open Source" is not trademarked.

How Ironic

[suitepotato]

The open source community arguing over who OWNS the rights to "Open Source" much the way closed source people argue who owns the rights to code and what they can do with it. The same community which whines any time the **AA people go on about ownership. Suddenly, the impulse to own is okay and cool.

Hypocrites.

Thanks very much open source community for shooting the movement in the foot and nuts again.

Re:How Ironic

[Vexorian]

Quite an over statement.

First of all I am not sure if OSI was so against owning stuff, most OSI approved licenses got the word "copyright" on them, did you notice?

I didn't think it was all about giving everything for free and letting anyone do what they want

Thus I am unable to see the Irony, did you have issues understanding what is the actual problem here? Proprietary software disguising itself as open source, it is something the Open Source community is forced to handle thus your last line doesn't make any sense either.

OSI Certified is alright, but...

[clintre]

I have no problem with having something like OSI Certified Open Source, but when you start getting to the point where just "Open Source" has to follow "their" idea of Open Source I have a problem.

Licensing can be key to a organizations success and while I agree Open Source should have a meaning you have to have the ability to have some "one offs" or it will not be a true success. Some people take that to the extreme and really make it no longer truly open source.

However if you go to far you make it where no one wants to use it and it becomes no longer relevent.

OSI approved License

[Vexorian]

I think that a better solution is to promote the usage of the "OSI approved License" logo on webpages and projects that got an actual open source license. Since the words "Open Source" are pretty ambiguous, some people make the mistake of thinking that being able to read the source code makes it "open" and some people even dare to say that it is the standard/popular definition, which doesn't make any logical sense but that is.

I just think the logo is a much more efficient way of letting people know what software is truly open, otherwise when I am looking for libraries I just stick to sourceforge for this reason, too much non open source stuff pretend to be open lately...

The Dictionary Definition

[ducomputergeek]

People have been blasting about what "open source" really means, so I decided to go check the dictionary at www.m-w.com and guess what, there was no relevant entry found.

However. the first suggested word I use instead was "oppressors".

Not the first either.

[bill_mcgonigle]

What makes your definition the official definition any more than anyone else's? If you try to sue someone who's inappropriately using the term, a judge is going to ask you the exact same thing. You're going to need a better answer than "we got there first".

That's likely not even good enough. I found this one with quick GG search - no doubt others exist. The official story is it was invented at a Netscape meeting in '98.

Perhaps the argument is for the use as a noun, or maybe the caps?

Re:Start here: Open Cascade claims to be open sour

[EraseEraseMe]

Yes

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is OSI and who cares? OSI can eat a dick.

Caps too?

[bill_mcgonigle]

No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source". It no more attempts to redefine "Open" than the brand "The Prudential" attempts to redefine "The".

Are the caps part of the brand? That is, are folks selling 'open-source software' in violation if they don't use an OSI-approved license?

OSI is 'big brother' now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck is OSI to determine whether a license I use is open source or not?
I can create my own license, that meets all open source criteria, release my software under that license, and not bother getting my license approved by OSI, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Fuck them.

Obvious troll

[huckamania]

So in the NWO, only OSI approved entities will be able to call themselves "Open Source". I'm guessing that these new laws you speak of will require "Open Source" software.

OSS Fatwah

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all fun and games until someone makes fun of YOUR religion.

Just make sure they don't declare a fatwah on you. Them thar fanaticalists git mighty riled when you trash talk their religion. Stallman adherents and accolites go far beyond any MS fanboyism that might exist.

Re:FOSSies throw a tantrum

[MightyMartian]

So, because it's free, somehow the licenses that some of these outfits agree to by even using the code shouldn't be enforced? If I paint a picture and give it to an art gallery specifically to display for free, and they turn around and violate the agreement by selling it to a private collector, I should just go "Oh well, I gave it away."

There's a reason for GPL and other licenses, and that's to make sure what is free *STAYS* free.

The funny part of this

[Anonymous Coward]

All this talk about the meaning of "open source" is a virtual spitball fight, it is annoying and messy, but no one is going to get hurt. All of the parties involved have the same lawyers. DLA Piper represents OSI and many of the commercial open source vendors including SugarCRM. Mark Radcliffe also chairs one of the GPLv3 committees.

Newest example: NASA's CLARAty Open Source License

[janwedekind]

http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/software/license/o pen_src/index.php An the license straight away starts contradicting its title starting with the first condition:

1) The Software shall not be used for commercial production or sale of any commercial product or derivative incorporating the Software. Should the user desire to use the Software for any such commercial purpose, the user must contact the Office of Technology Transfer at Caltech to obtain permissions and pay the appropriate royalty; and ...

Maybe in many cases it is not a malicious attempt to fool users into selecting their software. Often it is a lack of understanding (or a different understanding) what the term "open source" actually means. If someone wrongly claims that his/her software is licensed with an OSI approved license, this is a different story however. I think it is much safer to use terms like GNU Public License or OSI approved license to avoid misunderstandings and to hamper any attempts of twisting the meaning of what you are saying. This whole thing reminds me a bit of mimicry .

Other comments are mostly misinformed.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have other trademarks and a common law mark (i.e. they've been using it the whole time, but their registration lapsed). This would make things more difficult for them, legally, but a good lawyer could probably straighten it out.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Re:Other comments are mostly misinformed.

[Anonymous Coward]

but a good lawyer could probably straighten it out. Not when "open source" has fallen into common use.

So what is an open standard?

[Anonymous Coward]

One you can freely read? Or one you can freely implement?

You're badly confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Open Source phrase is public domain

Err, no.

Trademarks become generic if too widely used, copyrights pass into the public domain (in theory, I don't advise holding your breath because the terms on them are insanely long). Patents simply expire.

Thus, the point of this is that they're trying to enforce their common law mark (which they may or may not have to register once again--they had it registered to begin with, but it did lapse for a bit). To my understanding, they have been defending it the whole time (i.e. you can't just call, say, Vista "open source") although you might be right that they could have some trouble with it being generic. Then again, if they've been defending the mark this whole time, they could just as well prevail in court.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

so i'll treat it as osi open software

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you take me to court i'll say 'you said it was open source software', pont to osi's definition, and get off scott free. Is that ok for you? Confusion doesn't help you either.

God forbid "open source" should be subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce wrote:
> If we don't demand that of people who brand their products as "Open Soucrce", anything - whether it has source code or not - will be called "Open Source".

Yeah, I have that problem with the term "Useful" too. It's ridiculous that we allow companies to release a software product and call it "useful" when in reality the product is totally worthless! How can I fix that by getting into this useful trademarking industry?

"Open Source" is much closer to the term "useful" than to, say, the term "sugar-free". People know what sugar-free means because it's self-explanatory. But (if a couple hundred posts here are any indication) "open source" is vague enough that any intelligent person still needs to read the license anyway.

If, Bruce, years ago you wrote down what "Open Source" means, then it seems strange that the OSI should have to explicitly rule on whether a particular license is Open Source. Why not just publish your open source rules, call it a license, and let people use that license if they want to? Set it free, man...

Open Source is NOT a brand. You can't seize words

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep talking about, in many of your posts, about the Open Source brand.

But "Open Source" is NOT a brand, and "Open Source" is definitely NOT your brand.

The OSI article admits that people and companies have been using "Open Source" to mean lots of different things, for years. The is the exact opposite of a brand. It's the very definition of a generic term.

Regardless of its origins (so the argument "We coined the term" is irrelevant - you can't put the genie back in the bottle), today "Open Source" is a generic English phrase, that nobody controls, and that is NOT a brand. The OSI article that triggered those whole discussion, recognizes that is the phrase's current status.

No matter how esteemed an organization is, nothing gives it, you (or anybody else) the right to try to seize control of a generic English phrase, and make it into your brand.

In my mind, this is not fundamentally different from Microsoft trying to seize control of the word "Windows", despite the fact that windows is an established generic term for any GUI.

Yes OSI is probably more popular than Microsoft as an organization - and OSI might use less heavy-handed tactics than Microsoft - but it still doesn't mean you have a right to just take over words, once their generic use has been well established.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.

what is open source?

[falconwolf]

I'm pretty sure you can get a trademark/copywhatsoever (IANAL) on "OSI Approved OSS", promote that as what "true/standardized" Open Source software is, and then you can have the legal ground to go after deceitful entities.

They coud do this but someone else could also go and say they have the "true/standardized" Open Source. As such it would not mean much. Now if the IEEE were to standardize what opensource meant then it could have some weight.

Falcon

Re:what is open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

They coud do this but someone else could also go and say they have the "true/standardized" Open Source. As such it would not mean much. Now if the IEEE were to standardize what opensource meant then it could have some weight.

True, but back again to the web analogy:

There are many web standards bodies out there (Google can back me up on this).
The "true/standardized" entity is mainly based on "brand" recognition and user base, no one can stop people from validating their markup with WSG and call it "validated".

However, most web developers/programmers (and web browser programmers) [not hobbyists] are more familiar with W3C and try to adhere to their standards. It's all about who gets more users.

I used to be a freelancer at some point, and almost none of my clients knew the W3C (let alone web standards).

Back to the thread:

I'd venture a guess that the people who care about genuine open source software (that hold the spirit of open source); and would make purchasing decisions for their company; will not be your average Joe who knows nothing about open souce software.

If the word is spread out in the IT industry and a buzz around OSI was generated (by having some big open source projects back OSI by showing the proposed logo/seal on their site) it will pretty much address that angle (IT decision makers recognizing "OSI Approved" that is).

I understand you know all this and you were referring to IEEE as an already established body, but why not have OSI become recognized and then maybe have IEEE standardize on whatever OSI gets to?
I think that would be easier than trying to get a standard from IEEE when you already have an entity who has an initiative and active members (they respond on Slashdot for crying out loud! :P).

who's first?

[falconwolf]

What makes your definition the official definition any more than anyone else's? If you try to sue someone who's inappropriately using the term, a judge is going to ask you the exact same thing. You're going to need a better answer than "we got there first".

The thing is is the OSI wasn't first to use "open source".

Falcon

definition of "open source"

[falconwolf]

You can interpret the term however you wish, but that doesn't change its definition. Bruce Perens coined the phrase "Open Source Software" as a business-friendly synonym for the phrase "Free Software". The Open Source Definition, also written by Bruce Perens, is the definition of the phrase he coined. What you're talking about isn't Open Source by the very definition of the term.

Oh, can you provide a link to back this up, and when it was?

Remember, "Open Source Software" is a synonym for "Free Software". If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.

It may be to you but it's not to everyone else.

Falcon

who defines "open source"?

[falconwolf]

No. On February 2, 1998, we created a brand called "Open Source". It no more attempts to redefine "Open" than the brand "The Prudential" attempts to redefine "The" .

Ah but two years before, in 1996, Caldera used "open source": Caldera Announces Open-Source Code Model for DOS.

Falcon

Re:who defines "open source"?

[Bruce Perens]

Ah but two years before, in 1996, Caldera used "open source

There are a couple of embryonic usages of the words together that didn't go anywhere. They can not be considered to interfere with the creation of a brand. There is also a separate usage for the defense intelligence industry.

Call out Ping Identity too

[psykocrime]

Ping Identity are another outfit calling their stuff "Open Source" but not using an OSI approved license. Their license *might* manage to pass OSI certification if submitted (and maybe it has been and is still in process, come to think of it) but it's not on the current list.

http://www.sourceid.org/licenses/show/3

Centric CRM moving to open source?

[castaway045]

I just saw on Matt Asay's new blog on CNet that he claims that Centric CRM, one of the companies called out by the OSI, is going to ship a new product under an OSI-approved license. If true, that would seem to suggest they might be paying attention to this discussion.

UK Trademark Law

[PSdiE]

Hmmm .. no particular opinion on the particular subject matter, but it is incorrect to say that trademarks are only protected in the UK if registered.

IANAL, but UK common law (per the 1994 Trade Marks Act) dictates that a trade term that is "sufficiently distinctive" and "does not conflict with prior registered or unregistered third-party UK rights" gains intrinsic protection, as means of identifying the origin of products or services.

From the ITMA website, for example:

What is a trade mark?
A trade mark is defined in the Trade Marks Directive* as "any sign capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings".

The essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the origin of goods and services; and the law of trade marks has been designed to promote that essential function. ...

One of the most important features of trade mark protection is that it relates to specific goods and/or services. Consequently, a single sign may be registered by different companies in respect of different goods and services.

http://www.itma.org.uk/pdf_downloads/publications/ fs-uk-tm.pdf

A little known reflection of this is that the "TM" mark can be used after sufficiently new and unique product names, etc, without registration. "RTM" is used when the trademark has been "actively registered".

Regarding the specific case of the "open source" label, however, I would have thought that the term is too generic to warrant reliable protection. Because no restriction on its usage has taken place to-date and because of the myriad of OSS licences, "open source" could be legitimately interpreted to mean a variety of things, e.g.:

• Software with inspectible (and optionally modifiable) source code
• Gratis (i.e., no cost) open sourcecode software (with usage restrictions)
• Libre Open Source Software ("FLOSS") with no usage restrictions (e.g., LGPL, BSD)
• Copyleft licensed open source software (e.g., GNU), restrictions on derivatives

Therefore, retrospectively restricting the meaning of "open source" seems the wrong approach. Surely this term should be left to mean "open source code" (which is better than closed-source, even if other freedoms aren't included) and more specific terms such as "FLOSS" should be used to mean LGPL, GPL, etc?

Cheers, Ben

RMS Clarifies What He Believes

[Bruce Perens]

Richard Stallman wrote me and said I mis-interpreted him. Here is his clarification:

Free Software and Open Source seem quite similar, if you look only at their software development practices. At the philosophical level, the difference is extreme. The Free Software Movement is a social movement for computer users' freedom. The Open Source philosophy cites practical, economic benefits. A deeper difference cannot be imagined.

The origin of Open Source lies in a practice that could have come from Dale Carnegie: if you seek to persuade someone, present the case in terms of his values and desires. For persuading business executives, citing practical, economic advantages can be effective. By all means do so, if it feels right to you, when speaking privately to executives.

Talking to the public is something else entirely. When we talk to the public, we promote whatever values we cite. If we cite only practical, economic advantages, and not freedom, we encourage people to value practical advantages and not value freedom.

Those values make our community weak. People who prefer a state of freedom only for the secondary practical and economic advantages it brings do not appreciate freedom itself, and they will not fight to defend it.

This is the reason I stated, in my joint speech with Bruce Perens, for not supporting the practice of presenting Free Software in public in the limited economic terms of Open Source.

- Richard Stallman