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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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..

[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: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.

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

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

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.

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: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