Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SPI Formally Non-Profit

Posted by justin++ on from the 501-(c)-(3) dept.

Software in the Public Interest, Inc. is now formally a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization, meaning that all donations are now tax deductible. SPI is the umbrella organization of several free software projects, primarily Debian, but also GNOME, Berlin, and the Open Hardware project. They (Disclaimer: I am a Debian developer, and thus associated with SPI) claim to hold the Open Source mark.

18 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. There is no Open Source trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2
    There is no trademark on Open Source:
    • "Open Source" is too descriptive.
    • SPI has no legal right to Open Source, since they've never certified anything as Open Source. OSI has always done that.
    • The trademark application was in Bruce Perens name, not SPI's name.
    • The trademark examiner rejected the application and returned it for clarification to Bruce, and he never responded because he insisted on doing so as an SPI officer and SPI wouldn't allow him to.
    • The trademark application has expired, so SPI's sole claim to fame has faded in the west.

    What does this mean? It means that Microsoft can call Windows 2000 "Open Source" if they want to. But not if we don't let them!. Boycott any product that claims to be Open Source but doesn't meet the Open Source Definition. Tell everyone you know what Open Source really means. It's our only hope.

    1. Re:There is no Open Source trademark by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3
      I'm not sure that you are correct about the application having expired, given the last paperwork I saw from USPTO. I think OSI can continue to pursue the application, and there is still a dispute with SPI, in which SPI may have a valid claim. Even if that application dies, it's still a trademark, just not a registered one, and registration can be applied for again. I'm not a party to how OSI and SPI are resolving this.

      I didn't ask SPI for permission to respond as an officer of SPI regarding the Open Source trademark. That was regarding the Debian trademark, and they did indeed give me permission, and I responded, and as far as I know the Debian trademark is in good shape.

      It's "too descriptive"? I'm not sure I agree with that one. It's also in a different trademark category from "OSS.com". I think it's valid - there's only a question regarding ownership.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:There is no Open Source trademark by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      The problem is that it's descriptive (as it was designed to be, if I understand its genesis correctly), not that it was used previously. Our (OSI's) lawyer, Larry Rosen, keeps banging it into our heads that we cannot stop people from using "Open Source" in a sentence. I can say "I opened five xterm Windows" without infringing on Microsoft's trademark.

      Also, the AC missed that the trademark is a U.S. trademark only. I've run into that a few times, when people complain to mark-misuse about non-U.S. people misusing it. All I can do is cajole these people -- I can't use the mark against them, because it has no force in their country.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    3. Re:There is no Open Source trademark by werdna · · Score: 2

      Trademarks are not like patents in the sense that "prior art," in the sense of use in a descriptive sense bars subsequent development of trademark rights. Rights to a trademark are obtained by use in commerce with respect to particular goods and services. While the first such user is entitled to priority in that mark if it is valid subject matter. Mere denotative use in a newgroup would not likely constitute a use in commerce.

      While it is generally more difficult to obtain protection for a merely descriptive mark than, say, a suggestive, abstract or coined mark, the mere fact of some prior denotative usages in a newsgroup would not likely factor heavily in a trademark validity analysis.

      These factors are somewhat further complicated by the fact that these folks are seeking registration of certification marks rather than trademarks, which although it uses generally similar principles to trademark law, is really a different critter than a trademark or collective mark. As is usually the case with legal matters, the truth is rather more interesting.

    4. Re:There is no Open Source trademark by werdna · · Score: 2

      You are conflating issues. A suggestive mark is as protectible as an abstract or coined mark. A merely descriptive or merely geographically descriptive term (even one that has been publicly used in denotative fashion) is protectible if it has obtained secondary meaning in the relevant marketplace.

      On the other hand, even a coined or abstract mark can lose its distinctiveness and become legally unprotectable if it becomes generic. However, the standard for genericide is quite high, and there are few modern examples. To be invalid as generic, the mark needs to be far more than "a common descriptive term," it would need to be the *only* term for a given genus of services. While "open source" does suggest or describe certain properties of certain classes of software licensed, it is unclear that a court would deem the mark invalid as generic.

    5. Re:There is no Open Source trademark by werdna · · Score: 4

      The poster is correct that, according to the USPTO database, the application for a federal registration of OPEN SOURCE as a certification mark of software licenses was abandoned for failure to respond to an office action. As Bruce points out, abandonment of an application is not an abandonment of a trademark or a certification mark.

      The question of descriptiveness is, well, tricky. Without passing on whether the mark OPEN SOURCE is merely descriptive rather than suggestive as used for licensing services, I will note that even if it is merely descriptive, the mark could still be enforceable if it had obtained secondary meaning. These subtleties are often overlooked in thinking about trademark cases, but they would be at the crux of any legal dispute if one arose.

  2. Trademark Dispute by Aaron+M.+Renn · · Score: 3

    I for one think it is a very bad reflection on SPI that they have failed to act in a timely manner on this trademark dispute. They called for comments from the free software community in 1998 (FWIW I told them they should give the mark over to OSI) and said they would have a decision by the beginning on 1999. Well, here we are and it's June and we haven't heard anything out of them. I emailed them in Feb or March and was told they were running behind but hoped to come up with something RSN. (They also told me they got disappointingly few responses).

    If SPI wants people to trust them with their money, they need to do better about following through on doing what they say they are going to do. Or at least communicating why it is that they can't do it.

  3. Re:Trademark wars... poll topic? by David+Price · · Score: 3
    Unfortunately, the Open Source service mark needs to belong to a specific organization. That's the point of the mark - enforcement. "Free software," unfortunately, is used by many commercial software companies to mean "software that can be acquired for no money." The GNU definition is ignored.

    The "Open Source" term was registered as a service mark to bring a little sanity to the advertisement of free software. If a company advertises a product as "Open Source," those viewing the advertisement can be confident (theoretically) that the program's license allows free redistribution and modification. If it doesn't, then the owner of the "Open Source" mark can bring legal action against the offender; therefore, the mark is a clear sign that you're getting free software.

    Unfortunately, there's a deadly flaw waiting in the wings. Since the ownership of the mark is in dispute, if either organization ( OSI or SPI) takes legal action, the offending software company will argue that the mark belongs to the other organization.

    This will have the effect of playing the two organizations off each other, and ultimately destroying the effectiveness and purity of the "Open Source" term. That would be a blow to our movement, since "Open Source" has become, in the past few months, the term under which many of us identify it.

    The ownership of the mark must be resolved, soon, before it has to come before a court. I personally don't care which of the two feuding organizations ends up with it; I trust both to use their best judgement to administer the mark. But it has to belong to only one of them.

    Eric, Bruce: one of you must display maturity and selflessness and give up your claim on the mark, before you pull it apart like two children in a tug-of-war that ultimately breaks the toy in dispute.

  4. Re:Trademark wars... poll topic? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    It's between OSI and SPI (and maybe between Eric and OSI to some extent). There's not much I can do about it.

    If I had my 'druthers, I'd see "Open Source"(tm) continue to refer to the DFSG/OSD that I wrote with the Debian folks.

    Mind if I do a shameless plug? My name's on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. Again, you win a few, you lose a few.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  5. Qt campaign by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    I am completely convinced that if there hadn't been a campaign about Qt's license, and a Harmony project, and a GNOME project, that Qt would not be Open Source today.

    I made peace with the KDE folks the moment I could. Actually, about 12 hours before I should have: I was so anxious to make peace that I preceded Troll Tech's public announcement, much to their annoyance. I publicly endorsed Troll's new license, and they display that endorsement on their web site.

    Nobody was more happy than me to see that mess resolved. I still think things would have been much worse if it had not happened.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  6. Re:Tax consequences by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    Write some code. Donate the code to FSF or SPI. Get a knowledgable accountant who is willing to try something new and defend it in an audit. Write off the value of "foregone royalties". Get audited. See if IRS disallows it. Someone has to be first.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  7. Re:Tax consequences by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    If gifts from strangers make up a significant part of your income, the IRS will consider them to be taxable income and not real gifts at all.

    If I'm not mistaken, there was even a line regarding taxable proceeds of barter on my return this year.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  8. Re:Trademark wars... poll topic? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3
    I don't think I have ever screwed up anything as badly as I've screwed up the Open Source trademark. I am frankly at a loss regarding how it will finally be sorted out (and it's out of my hands).

    Well, you win a few and lose a few. It's nice to see SPI finish its 501(c)3.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  9. Tax consequences by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3
    This means that SPI can use your money to work for free software approximately 1.3 times as efficiently as CoSource or SourceXChange. Given that you are in a 33% U.S. federal tax bracket (average for software engineers), you will essentially get back 33% of what you donate.

    Let's not forget that FSF has been a 501(c)3 for at least a decade.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  10. Bruce Perens and the lynch mob by Midnight+Coder · · Score: 3

    I've never meet Bruce Perens, or even e-mailed him, but from reading his work, and from observing his involvement in threads here I gotta say, I like the guy.

    He is committed to free software development, he doesn't just talk, he does what it takes to make a difference. I admire him for it.

    I've watched people here slander him in the worst possible way, and seen him lose his cool and reply angrily. I didn't think any the less of him for it, to me it made him seem more real, it made it seem like the stuff he is contributing to is really, truely, dear to him. Even if we go away I think he'll stay.

    So you say he was involved in the anti-KDE campaign. To me the "anti-KDE campaign" is the worst thing to ever happened in the free software world. It is a shameful story, a witch hunt were innocent developers were attacked for "crimes" they did not commit. The KDE developers did nothing wrong, I wasn't around from the beginning but I've read the mailing list archives and I've watch in horror and disgust over the last year or so.

    There is no excuse for what I've witnessed.

    Now I know Bruce Perens was part of this, I know he voted against the creation of a KDE newsgroup on usenet, I know there's much I don't know about how he was part of the anti-KDE campaign.

    But I believe he is innocent, unlike others who joined the lynch mob in this despicable affair, what he did, he did for the right reasons.

    He had every right to criticize the KDE project, people expressed valid concerns, what if MS brought TrollTech and stop giving away QT for free? If would have been the end of KDE that's what.

    KDE was about a GUI for unixes, not about freeing the source code. It relied on a toolkit that didn't give us the right to freely modify and distribute it. For some people, for Bruce Perens that wasn't good enough.

    Some still criticize KDE they call it evil and make derogatory remarks about the KDE developers. There are still reasons people don't like KDE, they consider C superior to C++, or the only kind of free software the are interested in is GPL'd software, or they won't support a truely international project like KDE because they consider it un-American. I don't think Bruce was interested in any of those reasons though.

    Once Bruce was satisfied with the QT license he crossed the line to support KDE. He stepped out of the lynch mob that had flocked around him and shielded the lynchees. That took guts, that's something he should be admired for.

  11. tax deductible? by kaisyain · · Score: 2

    I really can't think of any good reason why people wouldn't being that tax deductible basically means that you get to donate for free (up to a point and with certain restrictions of course).

    How does tax deductible mean you get to donate for free? I am not an accountant but I thought tax deductible meant the amount you contribute gets taken off of your taxable income.

    If I make $60,000 and get taxed at 33% then normally I would pay $19,800 in taxes. But if I made a $1000 donation to SPI I get taxed on $59,000 at 33%, paying $19.470.

    I save $330 on taxes but spend $1000 out of pocket. Rather than it being free I spent $670. That doesn't strike me as free.

  12. Re:This is awesome. by Jonas+�berg · · Score: 2

    I have to agree with your question about GNOME and SPI. Considering GNOME is part of the GNU Project and Miguel is a member of the FSF Board of directors, I was stunned to see that GNOME is considered to be an SPI project. I'd have hoped that atleast the GNOME web pages would credit the SPI if SPI is considered the umbrella for GNOME.
    As an FSF volunteer though, I'd much rather see the FSF as the umbrella organisation.

  13. Re:What can they do with the money? by Jonas+�berg · · Score: 2
    There's certainly things to spend money on that benefits the community. Here's a list for you:

    • Hire programmers to write free software
    • Paying for booths at tradeshows
    • Travelling to other places to talk about free software
    • Software distribution (bandwidth, domain names etc)
    • Hire lawyers to defend free software in court

    I don't know if the SPI will hire any programmers, that seems an unlikely event to me (FSF does this though), but they will most probably pay for Debian booths at different tradeshows and pay the travel fees for some Debian volunteers to staff the booths.