Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source Movements Bicker Over Logo
colinneagle writes in with a story about open source organizations fighting over logos. "A gear logo proposed to represent and easily identify open-source hardware has caught the eyes of the The Open Source Initiative, which believes the logo infringes its trademark. The gear logo is backed by the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA), which was formally established earlier this year to promote hardware innovation and unite the fragmented community of hackers and do-it-yourselfers. The gear mark is now being increasingly used on boards and circuits to indicate that the hardware is open-source and designs can be openly shared and modified. OSI has now informed OSHWA, which is acting on behalf of the open-source hardware community, that the logo infringes on its trademark. The issue at stake is a keyhole at the bottom of the open-source hardware logo, which resembles a keyhole at the bottom of the OSI logo. The gear logo was created as part of the contest hosted by the group that founded OSHWA, and the mark was released by its designer under a Creative Commons license, opening it up for the community to use on hardware."
What's the hardest part of a vegetable to eat?
The wheelchair.
For those too young to remember... 'open sores' is a reference to a User Friendly comic. I miss that comic.
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Slashdot uses the OSI logo as seen on this very story, so I wonder what the rules are on that.
The OSI web site FAQ says:
What about logo usage not linking to OSI?
Well, I read about Nominative Use and ... don't understand.
Seems like dilution to me, but IANAL, etc.
Also, it says the symbol can be used for linking to the OSI website.
Finally, it seems that the logo is to be accompanied by the text, "We recommend using the Futura Md BT Medium fonts as complementary fonts to the OSI Logo."
Having rambled on through all that, I have to assume Slashdot is in compliance and I'm too tired to make sense of it all.
I can't be the only one who thinks something's seriously wrong here?
Open source groups bickering over something insignificant? Really? Better fork it!
In this case I think it is more than egos.
I casually follow the open source/maker scenes and try and keep up to date with the general state of things. And without any other information I would have assumed these two logos represented either formally associated groups or even different projects branches of the same group.
Want to know why Free and Open Source software gets such a bad rap? It's shit like this!
Next time you wonder why the Year of the Linux Desktop is going to be a long ways off, if ever, remember all of these petty disputes. What about all the bickering whether we should call it Linux or GNU/Linux/X11/Gnome/Mahjong? So much time is wasted over trivial things like this. Both sides should be happy they are in the Open Source movement and focus only on that.
I think they have a point. Those two logos really look quite similar. Upon first look, I`d suspect, that I am dealing with different chapters of the same legal entity. And this is not the case. They should at least change either color, font, size or shape of the logo, to better distinguish themselves. Just my oppinion.
Does OSHWA have a philosophy very different from OSI, the way FSF does? If not, egos aside, why not come together (like X-Open & OSF once did to form OpenGroup) and include hardware in Open Source coverage? At the most basic level, hardware is nowadays increasingly represented in HDL code, which makes it the hardware equivalent of software source code. So similar FOSS licenses can cover them. Unlike software, it'd be easier to make money off open hardware, since one can't just take a Verilog model of something out there and toss it around: the least that would have to happen is that an FPGA would have to be programmed, and people can't just lend them around like CDs. So yeah, OSI should cover both, taking into it OSHWA
While the open-source movement itself has been under constant attack from patent trolls, copyright trolls, trolls of all sizes and from all sides, now we have this ....
PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK !!!
STOP BEING SO MOTHER-FUCKING CHILDISH !!!
I sincerely hope that there are still some adults left in the OSI and it's time for the adults to lead the movement
WE ARE TIRED OF ALL THE COPYRIGHT / LOGO / PATENT DISPUTES !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Drop the green, that's a nasty mistake!
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Not sure -- IANAL, after all -- but don't they risk some other, more nefarious, party hijacking their trademark if they don't defend it?
Yup.
Shitty situation, but I can actually see OSIs point. If I saw the OSHWA logo without prior background I probably would assume it was some how tied to OSI due to the similarity, which kinda defeats the whole point of a trademark.
Also as I understand it, when it comes to trademarks if you don't make efforts to protect it, you lose it.
Hopefully they come to some kind of amicable agreement. I think both sides are reasonable enough that they can come up with some way to fix this without us reading about the ongoing court battle for the next 2 years.
User Friendly is still very much alive.
http://www.userfriendly.org
Do they really not see the irony here? Really??
It would make sense for organizations with such similar goals to have similar symbols.
Then again, I can understand being concerned about being associated with another organization over which you have no control.
So, a few things are evident.
OSI have a point, the logos are so similar as to imply a connection / sponsorship. (Look at TFA, the similarities are really striking.)
OSHWA almost certainly must have been intending the similarity.
OSHWA didn't seek out approval in advance.
Thus, to keep their trademark, OSI are compelled to protect it. But this makes one wonder, what about OSHWA does OSI not like? Otherwise, one would think they would extend a license to the trademark. Alternatively I suppose that OSHWA might not want to abide by any restrictions set by OSI on use of the mark, but then I'm curious what restrictions were proposed.
There has to have been some conversation already, right?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
It has been doing reruns for a quite a while now. But I still read 'em. :D
I happened to be grabbing a fresh copy of Jetty and noticed that Codehaus's logo has the same keyhole.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Hey everyone, this hardware is open! That means you can look at it, tinker with it, take it apart, make your own versions and so on! Except that logo, don't touch that.
They are talking. Ditch the sensationalist IDG piece and go for the source:
(look for "Update 3")
The people involved are *far* more reasonable that we have come to expect from their corporate counterparts. All is well. Relax.
A hypocrite, really? I can thing of many derogatory terms that could be leveled against RMS, several of them arguably justified, but hypocrite isn't one that jumps out at me. From all that I've heard the man is fairly unflinching in his position, even if his personal eccentricities do leave him open to ridicule in many circles. Would you care to defend your claim?
Yeah, yeah, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The OSHWA only needs to change that logo. Trademarks are supposed to uniquely identify something. If you do not defend your trademark proactively you may find out you lost the right to use it. Their rant against using OSI licenses, if real, is nonsense of the worst kind. OSI stores a bunch of licenses someone else conceived which they perceive as having the right kind of attributes according to their charter. You are not hurting OSI in any way by not using the licenses.
So, while the Open Source movement founders and is in retreat in many fronts, the people who should be holding the fort are embroiled in this bullshit.
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, are we?
Really, is that why the OSI logo looks like a pallet-swapped version of this logo from before OSI existed?
Maybe OSHW should ask that logo's owner for terms, they might be more favorable.
Sadly, no. There hasn't been a new strip in years. For example, today's strip is a rerun from 2001.
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Why can't they be more like Larry Ewing, author of the most famous open source logo of them all, that fat dodo that looks like Homer Simpson after eating a school of tuna? I can understand Redhat and Canonical defending their logos to prevent third parties selling Trojaned or crapwared copies, but aren't the open source and the open hard movements distributing ideas, and the more viral the logos go, the popular their ideas become?
according to archive.org, that logo was placed on the site in 2002.
opensource.org was created in 1998
If their logo is registered with the USPTO, predates OSI's trademark submission, and they still pay for the trademark to be active they can sue OSI.
I cannot find flashenabled's trademark at the USPTO website. I can find OSI's though.
One tooth short of a KDE? A keyhole to represent that something is not locked down? Dysfunctional gear?
I donate this idea to the open source hardware community.
Glad to fixt that up for you. Get back to work.
Why is Snark Required?
OSI is willing to license the trademark, OSHWA's Gibb wrote in the blog entry. However, accepting such a license would establish OSI as the owner of the gear logo, which could put members at risk of litigation.
"It would make OSI responsible for deciding where and when the logo can be used, effectively giving OSI control of defining what can and cannot be labeled as open source hardware. It could also place OSHWA in the uncomfortable position of needing to enforce OSI trademarks," Gibb wrote.
In other words, OSHWA doesn't want to be beholden to another organization. If OSHWA and OSI were to disagree on whether a particular piece of hardware is "open source" or not, OSI would have the final say.
His copying of Symbolics’s intellectual property under license and then passing it off to LMI was hypocritical. If he really believed in his cause he should have been giving it away to the whole world rather than trying to fuck one company with another. I think if you look closely, you’ll find he still does the same thing. Just with more subtlety. He is a politician, nothing more.
They really are different sides of the same coin, and the cool thing is they both easily overlay each other for when you have open source software on open source hardware.
Seeing as the open source hardware logo was deliberately made to resemble the opensource software initiative logo, I think they have a very good case.
Really? This is my first memory of the term.
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/99/06/21/126233/metcalfe-claims-linux-cant-beat-win2000
Oops the link in that article is dead.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070316025237/http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/99/06/21/990621opmetcalfe.html
User Friendly is now considered old - so much so that people here might be "too young to remember"? WTF? Are there any posters here born in 2009 or later?
BRIAN: Are you the Open Source Hardware Initiative?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Open Source Hardware Initiative. We're the Open Source Initiative! Open Source Hardware Initiative. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate Closed Source as much as anybody.
O. S. I.: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate Closed Source already.
REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the O.S.I., you'd have to really hate Closed Source.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than Closed Source are the fucking Open Source Hardware Initiative.
O.S.I.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
O.S.I.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Free Software Foundation.
O.S.I.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the Open Source Initiative.
O.S.I.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The Open Source Initiative. Splitters.
REG: We're the Open Source Initiative!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the GNU Project.
REG: Open Source ! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the GNU Project, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
O.S.I.: Splitter!
RMS turns round and sticks two fingers up to the O. S. I.
OSI didn't file -- OSHWA and OSI are in discussions initiated by OSHWA.
There is no legal need to file where discussions are already taking place, if discussions fail and OSHWA says they are going to continue using their logo - then OSI needs to file suit at that time. Hell the fact that they are having discussions show how much better these organisations are behaving than most corporate entities.
Presumably one of those groups is a Microsoft shill disguised as an Open Source company. Which on is it?
Sounds more like an off.
Seriously. Rotate that thing 45 degrees and you have the IDIC. Gene Roddenberry shall rise from the grave and file a lawsuit shortly.
I'm 28 and I'd never heard of it.
which is totally what she said
If I saw the OSHWA logo without prior background I probably would assume it was some how tied to OSI due to the similarity, which kinda defeats the whole point of a trademark.
I saw it and went, "These aren't the same company showing the connection of different brands?"
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Those logos are clearly different, but the logos can go together!!!
Just put the green logo in the blue logo, so you have open hardware running open software.
Open source movements continue to bicker over the color of the bicycle shed out back.
I'm OSI's current president. Here are the facts that are missing from the OP:
Hypocrite in the sense that he is for freedom, as long as that freedom follows his view.
Oh? When was this and what exactly did he do? Your accusation is pretty vague, and Google is offering me no enlightenment.
As for giving away other's "intellectual property" to the world I don't see how that would be consistent with his stated philosophy. There's a pretty big difference between saying all software should be released Free by it's creators, and the petty "information want's to be free" phlegm coughed up by the warez crowd. What possible use would something like illegally released source code be to any law-abiding citizen?
Finally, well yeah, *of course* he's a politician, has he ever denied it? He rekindled and gave focus to a major social movement within the programmer population, is responsible for the free software license against which all others are measured, and is generally an opinionated advocate of his own philosophy. Such people do tend to be activists.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Comments and arguments that are based on "I don't know what the big deal is that these two logos look alike. OSI should be 'happy' that its similar" ignore the idea and basic tenets of what a trademark is. In general, a trademark exists so then when a "consumer" (end-user) encounters a trademark, the immediate association is with the trademark owner. If the end-user is confused, then the trademark simply doesn't work.
In the case of OSI and OSHWA, the issue is whether the 2 marks are similar enough to cause this confusion, and if when people encounter the OSHWA logo, their 1st reaction is to think of OSI, or vice-versa.
As anyone who has actually followed the event knows, both OSI and OSHWA have been working towards a mutually agreeable solution... there have never been threats, etc... The idea that somehow OSI and OSHWA are "fighting" or "bickering" over the logos make good copy, but has no basis in reality.
But the similarity is because OSI chose to trademark a keyhole in a round frame. They minimalized to the point where anyone using a keyhole is likely to have a similarity.
And OSI didn't register that logo until 2006
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:j1td34.3.19
Trademark(in the US) is conveyed through use in commerce, not registration.
Then he said, "Are you with me!"
And a giant lawyer/shark jumped up and ate him!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Just reading the subject line, I was wondering what they had against Logo
registration doesn't matter... it only counts when calculating damages.
the earliest reference in archive.org for the site with that logo was jan 23, 2002. also found this post who says it was created in 2001:
http://lists.openhardware.org/pipermail/legal/2011-September/000004.html
Interestingly, opensource.org did not use the logo until June 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020725154922/http://opensource.org/
In fact, that page has an announcement in the sidebar:
*June 2002, Open Source & OSI-Certified marks launched! HTML & Print (color) instructions. Read about our Certification Program.
I would be interested in hearing what OSIs response is.
Seriously. Absolutely Seriously?
End of the credibility of the OSI?
that is the shape of the "magic eye tube" circle, first unveiled in the 1930s by RCA. sorry, guys, but Void That Copyright!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Similar enough for people to associate the two forms with some underlying concept? Yes. But that's the point.
Have gnu, will travel.
So I guess that means that infringement is their fault, right?
Shouldn't the OSI and the OSHWA be working together anyways? They have similar goals and challenges. Petty bickering between the two organizations is silly and counter-productive to their goals. They should create a central governing body to cover both, call it the OSA (Open Source Alliance) and dedicate it to all things Open Source. This would grant both groups a LOT more power to direct industry, champion patent and copyright reform, and even take down some patent trolls.
I do Free Software instead. Free Hardware sounds even better than Open Source Hardware.
Based on name alone, which do you think most folk would want to find out more about?
Bonus, it gives RMS yet another soap box from which to preach the virtue of "Free vs Free".
Fine with me, I like the runner-up design better, available here on a t-shirt
http://www.spreadshirt.com/open-hardware-white-C3376A7945787
There are links to the actual submission and discussion in the design description.