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

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.

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.