Slashdot Mirror
ESR On the Open Source Trademark
The following is an announcement from Eric S. Raymond
On June 15 1999 ZDNet broke the news that OSI's application for an "Open Source" trademark had lapsed, anticipating the public statement OSI had planned to make following its board meeting on 17 June. Subsequently, many people have expressed concern that the phrase "Open Source" might be trademarked by some party hostile to the open-source community.
That's not likely, for the very reason the application was permitted to lapse. We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the `open source' concept into the mainstream.
So "Open Source" is not and cannot become a trademark. The purposes for which OSI sought a trademark, however, are still valid. We believe the open-source community gains much from the existence of a recognizable brand name -- one which certifies to users that software is being distributed under the licensing model best shown to produce high quality software. We believe that software vendors will seek to use an appropriate certification mark to signify that quality.
For this reason, the Open Source Initiative is announcing a new certification mark, `OSI Certified'. When the Open Source Initiative has approved the license under which a software product is issued, the software's provider is permitted by us to use the OSI Certified certification mark for that open source software. The details will be spelled out on OSI's Web site shortly,
In all such decisions, OSI will seek (as it always has) to advance the interests of the community we serve, and to promote the winning combination of open standards, open source code and independent peer review.
Because the phrase "open source" cannot be trademarked, we must rely on market pressure to protect the concept from abuse. When you see software that claims to be "open source," look for the OSI Certified mark as your assurance of compliance with acceptable licensing standards.
If you don't see the OSI Certified mark, please read the vendor's license for yourself to check that it is in conformance with the Open Source Definition. Please encourage software providers to obtain OSI's certification and to use the OSI Certified mark, and do not purchase software if it claims to be `open source' but does not meet the terms of the Open Source Definition. (Issued by and for OSI, 16 Jun 1999. A copy of this announcement is available on the OSI website at opensource.org.)
Presumably the GPL is OSI certified, and therefore any software licensed under the GPL is 'automatically' OSI certified, with minimal money and time expenditure to companies involved. Thus, companies have another incentive to use the GPL.
What would actually be rather useful, IMHO, would be a system not really of certification, but rather of evaluation of differences. As more and more companies release more open source products, they often include very long licenses written by a team of lawyers in fluent legaleze (one of the reasons I happen to be a bit partial to the BSD licenses is that they are short, sweet, and to the point). People simply to read through each new license and summarize the differences with current licenses for those of us not indoctrinated to the ways of legal documents. Then people can make their own decissions.
This is absolutely false. IMHO, the BSD license is more free (as in speech, not beer) that the GPL. I can do anything I want with the source, including making non-free products from it. However, I cannot restrict others freedoms by not allowing them to develop and distribute their own free code.
This is an old argument though (and after watching Eric Raymond and Theo DeRaadt battle it out there is little more I can add to either camp). Both licenses are clearly open source, IMHO. Others have given me access to their code to modify, improve, and redstribute, and squabbles aside, that's what matters.
Currently, nothing. We have no plans to charge anything. We're going for non-profit status, so even if we did charge anything, it would be solely to cover costs.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The term "open source" is at least as confusing as "free software". Clearing up confusion is not the reason to make the change. The reason is that Raymond, et. al. wanted to make free software corporate friendly and strip it of the ethical significance that goes along with it (which they had never agreed with).
It was pointed out from day one that the obvious meaning of "open source" is "you can have the source code" which is not sufficient to make something free. Thus I don't believe it when I'm told that the reason for switching terms is to eliminate confusion. It was to eliminate troublesome ideas.
>You keep harping on the dropped office action. Since the registration was done in SPI's name, OSI had no legal basis
>for replying to the action.
And yet OSI kept repeating how they, not SPI, held the mark. Sounds like another mark under the previous AC's "Duplicitious" column.
OSI Certified means the software is open. Public Domain software is open, but only incidentally. Company B can easily take the software (even without mods) and re-release closed with the same name. How evil is that??
I'll tell you, but you'll not like the answer: it's not evil at all; that's exactly what the authors of public domain software allow. I tend to write PD snippets because a) they're not very intelligent software anyway and b) I want to allow others to make money off the additions they make. The GPL is useful, but let us not forget that it denies someone the ability to keep his changes close to his vest. This limits the writers freedom just as much as it increases ours.
That said, the GPL is extremely useful for implementing the type of software it is designed for: community efforts and the like. But imagine if every hash algorithm were GPLed. Even if that hash code were less than 1/144th of the total code in a product, say a vertical-market integrity-schecking app, the entire app would need to be open-sourced, and the firm writing it would cease to make money as soon as someone downloaded and compiled it. In some markets you just cannot make money off of support. Some things need the GPL, others other open source licenses.
I'd like a license along the lines of: any modification of code must be open-sourced, but use of the code within a greater application in a ration of less than, say, 1/12th may be closed.
Major market confusion thus weakening the power of the OSI mark.
Not at all. The first product is obviously open source. The second, proprietary product is no longer open source. No confusion.
Or perhaps you mean confusion over what exactly open source is. I don't see much confusion between the BSD and GPL models: the one guarantees the freedom of the recipients of the code, the other the freedom of the author and the community.
There's lots of really cool free software out there that isn't open source or Free Software.
The English language is not controlled by the OSI or FSF (not that I think they're trying to). When a company offers their product "for free" it still means free as in beer unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. You don't expect to get the recipe to Twix when you're getting a free sample, do you?
That's the whole reason ESR et al wanted a different term to represent Free Software that was less confusing to newbies.
--
"I got it running, grabbed a rocket launcher, and fired down a hallway." --John Carmack
Keep the logo simple enough, and you can use it to prevent people from labeling software Open Source when it's not as their lable would be considered trademark violation by way of trying to confuse the customer.
How about a nice simple, clean, clear logo along the lines of:
"Open Source" in raised (like a button in Windows) lettering above the word "Certified" in smaller lettering.
...it'll never work. :)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
In a free market (and that is the same meaning of the word free that is used in the term free software by FSF), the value proposition that OSI offers is the reliability of the mark. This is true whether or not they make money off the mark directly, because if they do, they have financial reason to defend the meaning of the mark, and if they don't they are motivated by the same value propositions that motivate the rest of the free software movement: reputation and indirect gain.
It is all very well and good to say we should each do our own research, but as others have pointed out, there is a better way. The power of freedom is that it allows each of us to share with the others the fruits of our labors, to our mutual benefit. In this case, OSI contributes the labor of doing the research to make sure a particular product complies with the Open Source Guidelines, so that we don't each have to indivudially use our valuable time to do that for every product we use.
The OSI mark is only as useful as its consistent reputation. The "Designed for Windows" mark is practically worthless precisely because it tells you nothing you don't already know (and sometimes lies). I think we can be pretty sure that the OSI mark will retain its value, and be of service to the community.
And the beauty of the free market is that if you don't like what OSI stands for, you can set up your own competing certification. And the "customers" get additional information that way, by seeing which products bear which (or both) marks.
In fact, I don't see the "split" between the "free software" folks and the "open source" folks as a bad thing at all. It's just free market competition, from which we have all profited (the controversies have strengthened all sides), and will continue to do so!
--BitDancer
It still has the patent withdrawal clause, which takes place when there is just a _claim_ of infringement. Some future less friendly Apple management can simply say 'Oh, my mother-in-law thinks the code infringes someone's patents. Sorry, you have to stop using it'. His mother-in-law is not the patent owner, but the license doesn't require that the claim be made by the owner, or that the claim be made in court. Apple can withdraw the whole code any time they want using this method.
The license also restricts people in countries without patent laws. License 1.1 contains a clause which says that "nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party." This clause supposedly takes care of such cases. But it is not clear that "doing nothing because I am in a country which doesn't recognize software patents" is considered to be independent negotiation.
Personally, I love the fact that osi.org points to
the Ontario Swine Insititute. Should make it
rabidly clear what "OSI certified" Means.
Of course, if you didn't go the osi.org, you'd
probably think that something that was OSI
certified was referring to a certain seven layer
Network Model, and you would probably be pretty
puzzled as to why anyone would want to associate
themselves with the actual OSI protocols... At
least I would.
- Any Day above Ground is a good Day (Michael Rich, 1997)
Yes, it would exclude BSD. As it should, because BSD is not guaranteed free.
Quoting http://www.opensource.org/products.html :
If you use the MIT license, or GPL, or Artistic License, or BSD license, or any of the other example licenses listed in OSD clause 10, then your software is Open Source and you may use the Open Source mark without asking.
I would assume that they will apply similar clauses on the "OSI Certified" mark.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Only if you release it under a new license and find the need to call it OSI certified.
I think most open source hackers have their favorite license (usually either GPL or BSD) and release all their code under it.
Definately they will need a good logo. We all know how well the Intel Inside campaign has worked. If they opt for mere text ("OSI Certified") they will dig themselves in a deep hole. A small logo that can be stamped on software boxes next to the Penguin, the Intel mark, and the Windows flag (open-source windows products? why not?) will do wonders for the cause. Has OSI mentioned this?
Actually, Windows is an unregistered trademark and Microsoft is a registered trademark. Hence:
Microsoft(r) Windows(tm).
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
This is a Good Thing(tm). I was always kind of uncomfortable having a closed-membership organization such as OSI claiming to own the term "Open Source" and being the sole arbiter of what can and cannot call itself Open Source(tm). Perhaps if it was the FSF I'd feel differently, since they've been around for 15+ years and have certainly established themselves as a trustworthy organization, but they don't like the term to begin with. The new "OSI Certified" mark, IMHO, much better reflects what that certification mark is - it's a certification by OSI that it meets their criteria for Open Source software. It is not necessarily the "correct" opinion or the one that the open source community agrees with, so it's good that they're no longer trying to pass their opinion off as the opinion of "Open Source" in general.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
OSI is not infallible or above political motivations, however. Note that they certified the APSL v1.0 as OSD/DFSG compliant, yet many people had problems with it and didn't believe it was in fact compliant. Luckily, Apple took the initiative in fixing things with APSL v1.1.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What a dolt. This jerk thinks that everybody needs his stamp of approval. As If! He doesn't even have a lawyer, or if he does, the his lawyer's a dolt, too. He's still pretending that the OSI is an organization that actually is bona fide and represents something. Get outta town. He knew what he admits now, that he could not trademark it a long time ago. He concealed it until his cover was blown. Now he acts like he's doing us all a favor. Turn in your room key, kid. You ought to go into the gun show business and leave us alone.
I'm glad 'Open Source' can't be OSI's certification mark, as 'Open Source' is a misnomer. If something is open and you're allowed near it, you can see inside it. Can you play with it? Perhaps there isn't a wall between you and its insides, but there may still be an agreement that you're not allowed to touch.
Now OSI will have to be honest and say that a license is 'OSI Certified' which is what the license is if they okay it. They're not (or at least they shouldn't be) claiming their approval means the approval of the community.
But I'd rather have companies use a (L)GPL, BSD, MIT, or X license rather than invent some new license with new restrictions to figure out how to abide by. Interopability of code is nice and a dozen new incompatible 'OSI Certified' licenses doesn't seem so nice.
The problem is companies are used to the way they've been doing things and instead of being shown how we do things, they're being shown hype and, if we're lucky, the products of our doing. Are we a culture of technical and marketing achievements, or of sharing?
I believe that the "OSI-Certified" certification mark is appliable to software licenses, not software packages. The GPL is OSI-Certified by default, so anything you release under it also is.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Bashing Microsoft is great exercise (if done correctly), though improper posture can cause muscle strain.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I personaly think that's a good thing, I always thought it was kind of hypocritical for someone ot 'own' the words "open source" dispite what there intentions were... OSI certified is a better tool, I belive
:)
also: first post?
---------------
Chad Okere
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The lesson is hard-learned: if it can possibly be owned, someone will claim ownership. The strongest way to keep something free is to give nominal ownership of it to someone who believes in keeping it free -- because by giving them nominal ownership, you give them the power to defend it. Otherwise, someone ELSE steps in and grabs ownership, and then that person has the advantage.
You make it sound like it's only non-ironic to have ideals if one absolutely eschews any practical methods of achieving them.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
>> Having people blindly trust a product because of a certification mark is
what we do everytime we accept cash. Or would you rather every person buying a coke having to give a long drawn out explanation of what he has produced/processed/provided/etc. which justifies his compensation equivalent to... say two pieces of chicken... and to sign to that?
Certification is a useful thing similar to code reuse in the form of libraries. As long as anyone can look at the criteria that made it earn that certification what's your beef?
I'd rather like a (brief yet descriptive) explanation of exactly what OSI stands for (no not the letters) and how this differs from the 'open source community' view.
What I did see of their site (generally speaking) seemed a bit like propaganda to me..
Certification is equivalent, in my mind, to saying "let us do the thinking for you".
The problem with this "community" is that it's trying to act like a company, and trying to provide some sort of "united front" in some sort of attempt to "take over the world"
bullshit.
write software. Use the software. Enjoy the fact that you have quality software, and the freedom to read, modify, change, and redistribute it.
but stop pretending to speak for everyone else who also enjoys those freedoms.
We're intelligent people who can decide for and amongst ourselves whether we want to participate in software development under certain various licensing terms.
We simply do not need some certification from on high. This is "cathedralic" to use ESR's own analogies.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
Go to opensource.com and check THAT out.
This sounds like the "100% Pure Java" mark
that Sun has been bandying around...
Micro$oft trademarks everything. Why can't we have a few? (I'm guessing M$ will begin trademarking letters soon. It's not like they can't afford to TM the entire dictionnary.)
:)
Next thing we know they'll be trademarking "trademark" and "TM".
(go for it, slap me with a -1 - i had fun anyways)
-Erik-
Is SPI considering registration of their own "SPI Certified" mark? Considering that the OSI/SPI haven't seen eye-to-eye on the whole "Open Source" deal (both the trademark and the spirit behind it), it seems semi-plausible that differences might arise as to which particular software products can qualify as "certified" . . .
Ahh... I am quite relieved that "Open Source" can't be trademarked by anyone... the irony would kill me :)
didnt your momma teach you any manners?
Now all we need is one of those silly little ;-)
logos that gather like lint at the bottom
of commercial software packaging
Seriously though, `OSI Certified' is a good
idea -- assuming it can be defended. But it
seems to me that the acronym `OSI' isn't
too well known outside the OSS community. Perhaps
a more recognisable mark like `True Open Source'
or `100% Open Source' or 'Certified Open Source'
might be better. Is that far enough away from
generic `Open Source' to be trademarkable?
And who defends the trademark? If M$ puts
`OSI Certified' on the W2K package without
meeting the conditions, who sues them?
Not to mention that it creates confusion in the mind of any manager who knows about the OSI seven layer model for creating a submarine sandwich.
``Open source'' is dead. The only thing ``open source'' had going for it was that it was supposedly going to be protected by a trademark. Now the term is is no longer going to deliver that and is going to be abused even more by vendors of proprietary technology, because it has become a hot buzzword. Going open source is ``in'', and now you can release your product with arbitrary restrictions and say that you are going open
source, without fearing repercussions from trodding upon a trademark.
As of now, I'm going to avoid using the term open source except perhaps in reference to proprietary products whose source code is released with restrictive licenses. I'm going back to calling truly free software ``freeware''.
why dont you just put 'counterrevolutionary'
on the top of it?
oh wait you wont get that joke, you dont
even know where china is on a map.
libertarian my ass. if OSI has some kinda 'seal of
approval' then it has power over people that it shouldnt
have. some guy out in the boonies making some program
has no say in whether or not OSI will grant him the
touch of their allmighty 'approval'... and dont give
me any shit about how 'OSI will be a benevolent dictator'
theres no such thing. how can a libertarian be for this crap?
Looks like you're all about yourself too.
Nobody put ESR in charge. His own fat-ass did.
Is it just me, or does that remind anyone else of the "Look for the 'Designed for Windows 95' sticker" campaign?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I think a reasonably intelligent person can put that into context.
--
anyone else get this?
Return-Path:
Received: from mx.icp.rssi.ru (mx.icp.rssi.ru [194.85.223.7])
by techhouse.services.brown.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA29747
for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:44:07 -0400
Message-Id:
Received: from mx.intra.ru ([194.135.182.7]) by mx.icp.rssi.ru
(post.office MTA v1.9.3b **** trial license expired ****)
with ESMTP id AAA193 for ;
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:42:04 +0400
Received: from ras5.icp.rssi.ru by mx.intra.ru with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange
Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1458.49)
id MQ9VDHYP; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:41:15 +0400
From: "slashdot.org"
To:
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:41:06 +0300
Subject: Dear Member of slashdot.org (mjm@techhouse.brown.edu)
Reply-To: support@slashdot.org
Organization: slashdot.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=XX79D779C6-005379D7XX
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Hello dear member!
Slashdot.org offer you new service of overclocking your operation system
(win95/98/NT/linux/mac
and more)
For more information please visit http://join.at/freepc
We always think about You
------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you by
Name: slashdot.org
Email Address: support@slashdot.org
IP Address: ras5.icp.rssi.ru
------------------------------------------
Using Aureate Group Mail Free Edition
Find out more about this product and try it
for free at: http://www.group-mail.com/1
>>What if Microsoft or the new triumvirate (AOL-Netscape-Sun) try to pay off the OSI with
7 930,00.html
huge quantities of money so they can control the usage of the term "open source"? At least they can't do that now.
Ah, but Microsoft already is claiming that NT is open source because a few universities have code read access to NT source. Hence, one of the reasons an attempt was made to trademark open source. With no trademark protection in sight, any vendor with enough nerve can label their product open source. Would you some Open Source fries with that?
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
See
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,227
for our news take on all this.
Oh ballocks. Logos and stamps and seals and signage have always been used for their symbolic value. There's no indication whatsoever that we're leaving literacy behind. I find it particularly ironic that you offer this pseudo-academic argument ("post-" anything, my BS meter goes off) on a textual forum where even the name of the forum is spelled out in its logo.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
It is my opinion that internet/computer users already have associations with the term "freeware" that do not include freely available source code.
If you look at a site like www.winfiles.com they classify software as being commercial, shareware or freeware.
I know that most of that freeware doesn't come with source. A new word would be needed for freeware with source AND a liscence that includes terms of free (as in freedom) source code reuse. This liscence could be picked from a list of compliant liscences (GPL, Netscape, or whatever) that are approved by the owner (org) of the trademark.
Any ideas for a good trademark?
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
A particular piece of software that is released under BSD license is will always be free. The modified versions don't have to be. They can be non-free, hence the fear.
Is this the real story? Was this all a ploy to extract massive funding? Egos aside, I wonder about such motivations. I would hate to put words in someone's mouth so perhaps we should _all_ agree to definitions first
One question I have yet to see answered, and was not addressed in ESR's note, is why were people claiming that there was a trademark in the first place when it obviously didn't exist? And better yet, why were they squabbling over this non-existant trademark, when there was "virtually no chance" it could be registered?
It's the ISO reference model--ISO stands for International Standards Organization. Still, there's obviously room for confusion.
The FSF should trademark Open Source, and let companies/organisations who follow FSF's model use it.
Micro$oft trademarks everything. Why can't we have a few? (I'm guessing M$ will begin trademarking letters soon. It's not like they can't afford to TM the entire dictionnary.)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There's some more history in my "Open Sources" paper here.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yes, unfortunately I got it as well. Ironic, I suppose. I haven't posted with a valid email address for probably almost a year.
No, it wasn't sent from slashdot, either. I just hope their ass gets nailed to the wall...
Oh, I see. You just want to force people to give you the changes they make on their own time to your non-free software, as well as to force people to give you the changes they make on their own time to other people's non-free software in which you had no involvement in at all.
Thanks for clearing that up.
sc
So if you go to one of these sites and someone's griping about how much "OSI sucks," you'll know they're not talking about this OSI.
So did I use enough link references?
J.
damned vulpine http://sb.drtwister.com/
Visit http://www.osi.org/ and go certified :-)
So what you're saying is that for software to be branded Open Source, it must put certain restrictions on what the user can do with it? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Whether a programmer wants people to be able write proprietary software using his code is up to him, not OSI. Personally, I think the only truly open source license is the BSD license (and those like it), because they give the user the most freedom with the code. There are certainly benifits to the GPL, and I'm usually more inclined to release code under it. However it's a personal choice. Don't tell other people how they should license their code.
And who the Hell does that Paul McCartney think he is? John Lennon is much more talented.
And you back up that accusation with what? Care to cite a specific incident of his "compulsive lying nature?"
It's morons like you which give Linux and Open Source a bad name.
I think you are mistaken. It's written "OSI Reference Model" in all my books, and entering
"OSI reference model networking layers" into
a search machine like AltaVista gives you a
lot of hits with the exact phrase "OSI
Reference Model".
P.S.: "OSI" stands for "Open Systems Interconnection" - just enter "OSI Open Systems Interconnection" into AltaVista and see for
yourself...
It's not the goverment doing it.
OSI can't bust into your house with a dark blue jump suit on with yellow OSI letter on the back and tell you to remove non-OSI compliant software.
If the OSI label sucks its as simple as creating a new approval system or disowning OSI's system.
--
Rambar
-- Rambar
*sigh*
Why are some persons so incredibly stupid?
Alejo.
It's been 3 hours since this article has been posted, and already you have 9 replies going! a little much perhaps? i like your comments, in fact, i often single them out to read what you have to say, but this is overkill... the bruce to everyone else ratio is a little high... just relax... thanks...
The trademark "OSI Certified" is probably a *very* bad idea - has nobody here ever heard about the "OSI Reference Model" of Networking Layers? "OSI Certified" will make people think it's the OSI from the OSI Reference Model that certified something, where in fact the two "OSI" have nothing to do with each other, AFAIK (?). (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) Not to mention possible lawsuits...
I wonder if it would even be possible to have
a certification mark such as "OSI Certified".
A quick search with google produced among others
OSI Software, Inc. at http://www.osisoft.com/
I always considered the words "open source"
to be a somewhat obvious combination since
many other organizations were using the
word "open" in various ways. As partial proof
I offer page 4 of _UNIX System V Release 4:
An Introduction, 2nd Edition_ by Rosen, Rosinski,
Farber, and Host copyrighted 1996. In big
bold letters one of the subsection headings
reads: "Open Source Code". I don't have the
first edition to see if that had "Open Source
Code" as well.
A particular anonymous coward, who has never done a damn thing for the community but bitch, now calls Eric a dolt.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the OSI != ESR. There's a whole bunch of people involved. If you don't like the OSI, don't join. Simple!
The purpose of the open source initiative is NOT to convince jerks like you to use free software but rather to convince corporate types to use and release free software. If you truly do not want more free software, then don't support OSI.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Good point.
;-)
/. rating system has sufficient granularity for it to work. Maybe it'll iron itself out over time.
So it is just that no-one else has yet posted enough decent posts for this to happen to them?
It seems rather self-fulfilling - if it were the case that mods had a tendency to mod someone "famous" up out of respect, it would lead to a situation where those who already have a platform get another one ("The first 20 million is always the hardest..."
Is auto-upgrading of people who are modded-up lots a good idea? I thought it was, but I don't think the
Gerv
Those who can't do, can't teach.
He made things happen. You did not.
Dont bitch.
BTW, the abbreviation "OSI" for "Open Source Initiative" conflicts with the "OSI" for "Open Systems Interconnection" (from the "OSI Reference Model" of networking layers), so the name choice was already unwise (if not incompetent) in the first place.
Unfortunately, the new APSL 1.1 is still not free software, and should not (IMHO) be considered Open Source. It still has the problem that Apple can 'suspend' (ie revoke) your rights to use a piece of code if there is a patent lawsuit against it in the US. Even if the lawsuit is totally baseless, but Apple don't want to fight it, they can revoke your rights to use the code. And for users outside the US, the APSL exposes them to the stupid software patent system.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I generally agree with your points; it is a shame that the pointy haired will look for OSI Certification or some other official check box.
On the other hand, if there are a half dozen or so licences that are considered Open Source, doesn't that make your life simpler?
You pick one, you automatically get the OSI Certification because you're using a "Certified" licence, and the customer doesn't nit-pick over the details of what the licence actually says.
Yes, but you can do that without a certificate mark. If you use a license that conforms to the open source definition, you can put that on the product and say "This product conforms with the Open Source Definition" and there would be nothing wrong with doing so. The OSI Certification is very much like going over the the river to get water.
'Windows' wasn't trademarked by MS: 'Microsoft Windows' is. The application was thrown out for the same reason as 'Open Source'.
Simon
> ... GUN-TOTING BACKWATER HICK ...
... FUCK THEM ALL.
"Gun-toting" or not, "backwater hick" or not,
whatever in the world do these have to do with
the subject at hand?
>
Dear Moderators: isn't this what moderation is
for?
No, you're wrong. Just plain "Windows" is a trademark of Microsoft. See Microsoft's Information on Terms of Use page for more information.
You just made that up, didn't you? And the 'Open Source' application was not thrown out, it expired due to lack of response to a request for more information.
My BS detector is going off quite loudly over this whole thing. I don't believe that the term 'Open Source' is not trademarkable by the poeple who coined the phrase just a year or two ago. The term had no meaning before then, was made up for this purpose and should therefore be a perfect candidate for a trademark.
I believe that the true answer is that ESR didn't want or can't afford the legal battle over the ownership of the name so he let the application lapse.
Carl Thompson
No, it was a misunderstanding on our part. You can't do what Bruce claimed to have done. You can't transfer ownership of a trademark. You have to transfer the goodwill associated with the trademark. Bruce made a hash of all the legalities associated with the mark -- he admits it, too. Just chalk it up to a learning experience.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Yeah, it'll be quite the "Learning Experience" when M$ goes and re-applies for the trademark on "Open Source" and proceeds to E&E the term.
As I pointed out in the post under the subject "Names", neither ESR nor Christine Petersen invented the term "Open Source". I'm not saying that they invented the term either, but check out _UNIX System V Release 4: An Introduction, 2nd Edition_ by Rosen, Rosinski, Farber, and Host, copyright 1996. On page 4 a subsection has the heading in bold letters: "Open Source Code". It is a subsection to a discussion under "Why is UNIX Important?" The subsection under "Open Source Code" begins:
The source code for the UNIX System, and
not just the executable code, has been
made available to users and programmers.
Because of this, many people have been
able to adapt the UNIX System in
different ways.
There is more that combines the ideas that "open source" refers to source code being both available and modifiable.
The most recently added features to the nested mode have caused /. to act a little funny, especially when a privileged user (someone who always gets a 2 by default on their posts) posts a lot in a single forum. It's not Bruce's fault, but in nested mode on threshold 2 he seems to talk to himself a lot. ;-)
/. posting mechanism:
7 %2F0213251&cid=&pid=0&startat=&threshold=2 &mode=nested&commentsort=3&op=Change
Look at the following URL, removing spaces that might have been inserted by the
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99%2F06%2F1
Of the 13 messages appearing at Level 2, my default level, 11 are by Bruce Perens.
I have a lot of respect for the man and his views, and he's done great things, but is he the only person commenting on this issue with anything relevant to say?
Perhaps moderators could be a little more generous with the points to those of us who are less famous...
Gerv
I dont consider an "OSI Certified" mark to be any more or less useful (or misleading) than any of the other Certified marks you find, like those bizarre Microsoft "Designed for Windows" ones (if it wasn't designed for Windows, it wouldn't say "Requires Windows" on it!), or stamping seals of approval from a bunch of obscure and subjective magazine reviews.
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
I fucking hate free software, my job depends on proprietary software. Are there any organizations I can join that oppose OSI? I have to protect my job, I still have 20 years before retirement!
The problem is that you need to be a gazillionaire to defend a weak trademark. OSI isn't, so we chose to abandon it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This sort of thing happens in a lot of movements, and this sort of division really isn't anything to be ashamed of. For any movement you have to have people who are grounded in the underlying principles (alternate definition: stubborn and immovable) and loyal to the causes of the movement, and you have to have people who are interested in figuring out ways to grow the movement and market its causes and maybe, well, are not so grounded. Again, this is normal and natural and nothing to be shocked at.
Even so, because OSI is the one to have based it's policies in the practical rather than the moral, I for one have always worried a bit about the long-term trustworthiness of the organization. This recent action shows that my worries and fears were not unfounded.
OSI has been telling us all along that they own the mark, and that they are continuing work on registering it. A couple days ago a ZDNet article, of all things, alerted us to the fact that they have in fact not been doing so.
Instead of protecting the "Open Source" certification mark, they've simply abandoned the registration without first telling anyone their plans.
In other words, they've been stringing us along, having us believe they're working for one thing, and instead have had completely different plans. That's dishonest, and that's deceitful.
OSI has proven itself to be deceitful.
OSI is no longer to be trusted.
It simply doesn't take much time to reply to a letter and answer some questions, and it doesn't cost very much either. In fact, the cost to write letters to the USPTO is *far less* than the cost to fly from city to city, talking with business leaders everywhere.
Even if you're being told responding to USPTO queries is a waste of time (which I don't believe), paper simply isn't that expensive, and if the OSI directors can explain what Open Source means to businesses and the media (and I think they can be said to have been successful at that), why can't they explain themselves to the US Patent and Trademark Office?
Bruce has already spent the $250 for the initial registration papers. They should have at least spent the money for stationary and postage to continue USPTO correspondence. It is an incredibly small investment to attempt to protect the mark that has been built up.
However, if they had had problems paying for stationary, had they let us know, I'm sure we could have provided paper, toner, and free copies of emacs.
OSI is cheap.
OSI does not use funds wisely.
OSI has proven itself to be fiscally irresponsible.
OSI is traitorous.
IANAL, but I was able to easily dig up two cases:
- Here is an appeal in which a trademark is found to be "merely descriptive" and not distinctive. (Unfortunately, slashdot mangles the URL. You can go to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/ , search for keyword 95-2238 in 8th Circuit Court Opinions, and it will be under First Bank vs. First Bank System.
- And from the Supreme Court Decision &graph url=&court=US&case=/us/000/u10301.html">Qualitex Co. V. Jacobson Products Co.,
So if I can easily find case law to prove that a mark can at least become distinctive, and if I can find magazines everywhere using "Open Source" as a very specific term, (implying that the USPTO could also agree that it's become distinctive), how could a group that presumably actually spent money for legal help in this area conclude that they had "virtually no chance" at success? Are they not aware of all the publicity "Open Source" has been getting, almost always specifically pointing out the Open Source Definition where practical? (ie, print media, not 10-second sound bites.)In this circumstance, trademark law says that the word (e.g., "Trim"), although not inherently distinctive, has developed "secondary meaning." See Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851, n. 11 (1982) ("secondary meaning" is acquired when "in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature . . . is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself"). Again, one might ask, if trademark law permits a descriptive word with secondary meaning to act as a mark, why would it not permit a color, under similar circumstances, to do the same?
(Unfortunately, slashdot mangles the url above. You can pull up the above info by going to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/ and search for keyword "Qualitex" in US Supreme Court opinions. Qualitex Co. vs. Jacobson Products Co. will be the first in the list.
I can only conclude that OSI didn't bother to research the issue in any depth, but decided it would be easier to give up instead.
In legal and procedural matters, OSI is lazy. (They're fantastic for the marketing of Open Source though, and not at all lazy there.)
What if OSI later convinces themselves that they've made a legal mistake and they *can* register the certification mark after all?
From their cut and dry statement, prematurely denying the possibility, I wonder if they've burned their bridges behind them. They may have a harder time trying to register it a second time.
It's why people hire lawyers--To keep from making that sort of foolish statement and boxing yourself in. Either their lawyer didn't think of that, (and that's the biggest part of their job), or OSI ignored their legal advice.
Either way, OSI is legally incompetent.
From SPI's trademark page: "Open Source, Open Hardware, and Debian are Registered Certification Marks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc."
Remember:
- SPI and OSI both say they own the mark.
- OSI ignores correspondence with USPTO, and the mark's registration lapses.
- OSI decides to register a different mark instead, something that would unquestionably be associated with them.
- When announcing the registration of this new mark, OSI then hurts SPI's chances of registering "Open Source" by claiming the non-fact that it can't be done.
OSI is practicing community involvement by (perhaps unintentional) vandalism.OSI is destructive.
(By the way, SPI is definitely not a "registered" mark, so SPI shouldn't claim otherwise.)
OSI can make amends.
Can you say.....
---*TROLL?????*---
Go back under your bridge, or at least own up to
your words, whoever your are.
Some points:
1) Who cares? Most people who purchase or download software (200 million users) do not know what OSI is and probably don't care. Adding a "certification" is relevant only so far as the certificate is known (esp. if it's an acronym).
2) Marketing vs. Nitpicking.
Like the GNU/Linux vs. Linux debacle, very technical minded geeks tend to lose sight of the whole point of a brand name. It must be concise. It must be widely used. It must create warm fuzzy feelings and make people feel happy and smile.
On the other hand, geeks tend to nitpick about the precise definition of what something deserves to be called. This is a major weakness and the entire point of the name - easy recognizability and an assurance of quality - is flushed down with the argument over what exactly it means and should be called. In the end, nobody remembers or cares if it gets so detailed.
Why do we have NIC cards which are idiotic permutations of 3,5,0, and 9? Because the people in charge of branding the names at 3com are morons and have forgotten what the point of a brand name is.
Do:
Keep it simple. Make it widely recognizable. Make it evoke one thing - by association or example.
e.g. Linux.
Don't:
Use unknown acronyms (by unknown I'm talking about general users, not hard core hackers). Make it vague or meaningless. Or worse - have multiple meanings. e.g. COM, "open standards", PCMCIA.
Finally, for chrissakes, give it a good name.
You're not being very practical.
Nobody has the time to investigate every single thing in so much detail. That is why we appoint political leaders, financial advisors, physicians and IT consultants to do the investigation on our behalf and to make decisions for us.
I certainly don't have the time to wade through reams of legalese every time I want to obtain a piece of software. I trust the OSI and the SPI to make that determination for me, and I will be thankful whenever they are able to do so.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I never wanted to get too much into the Free vs Open Source thing a while back, but I do see one possible difference now.
While many may now like to term their software Open Source even if it isn't, (and who could stop them now? (Deceptive advertising laws perhaps?)) I do not think that many will rush to term their software Free Software when it is not.
Any thoughts?
A Nony Mouse
As a practical matter, when you wish to establish a certification mark, you have to 1) decide that you want to do so, 2) decide on a name, 3) decide how to use it, and 4) pick someone to use it on. All of these have to be done in secret. Sorry if you don't like that.
Actually, Eric wanted to continue to press for an Open Source trademark. You can see from the comments here that abandoning it was a good thing, desired by the community we represent.
As the notice says (if you'd bothered to read it), we do not intend to abandon the Open Source name; we have merely recognized the truth that it is not a registerable mark; not by an organization without massive funding. You can equate poverty with laziness if you wish; as a libertarian I don't choose to denigrate ALL poor people in one blow.
You keep harping on the dropped office action. Since the registration was done in SPI's name, OSI had no legal basis for replying to the action.
As you note, you are not a lawyer, so your opinions about the law carry equal weight to mine -- that is to say, none at all.
The "Open Source" mark was poorly chosen. It's registration application was poorly written. You're beating a dead horse. Trust me, I beat it harder and longer than you did. But you're welcome to continue if you wish.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
ESR has made some questionable decisions as of late, but we have always managed to steer him right (in our own Trademarked /. way). For the first time in a while I'm happy to see he has made a decision that nearly everyone will be happy with. I always found TMing the name "Open Source" was speaking for a lot of people that he didn't have the right to speak for.
:) (just a dig at esr's libertarian tendencies)
Wouldja look at that, the US government did something right for once
PS please moderate down way below 0 the post I just made with the same subject. (damn tab button, muttermutter)
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
...that one of the requirement for "OSI Certified" is:
- Program cannot be modified and redistributed w/o source by non-vendor party
This requirement would be mostly for the protection of the vendor and would prevent Company A releasing source that Company B modifies and re-releases closed source.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Posted by phat5n00p3r:
The concept in itself is laughable given that the nature of Open Source is to be >OPEN.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Yes, it would exclude BSD. As it should, because BSD is not guaranteed free.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
It should be said from the beginning that I'm not a big follower of the "open source" name. I think that the issue has divided the community in ways that I can not even begin to comprehend.
But let's look at Eric's letter. I don't know Eric personally, so I don't know if this is what he intended. But what I'm moderately worried about is that when he explains what the OSI does, he talks about promoting "open source code" and "open standards". Not once does he talks about freedom. What good is sourcecode if I don't have the freedoms associated with it? This is nit-picking, but I'd like to agree with Bruce Perens; "It's time to talk about free software again."
In his letter, Eric introduces an OSI Certified mark which he sugests all software vendors should get and put on their products. I guess it's only a matter of time before we'll see "SuSE Certified", "RedHat Certified", "Linus Certified" or whatever certifications people can come up with. The fear I have is that people will put too much trust in these certifications; so much that they won't bother to investigate the matter further.
There's a psykosocial harm which happens when you tell people everything they need to know. Thus with every certification, you're depriving people of the will to investigate themselves and with time, they'll tend to think that if such and such program is so and so certified, then it must be a good program. Ofcourse, we who know about this also knows that even if something is so and so certified, that doesn't necessarily make it a good program. But thats what some people will think and they will buy this program because it is so and so certified.
If someone comes to me and asks me to get an OSI Certified mark for some piece of software which I have written, I will tell them "thank you for informing me, but I don't use that mark because I think that you're capable of deciding for yourself if this product is good for you or not."
He's a redneck who thinks his compulsive lying nature can get the better of everybody. All of these so called "leaders" are a pack of gorillas who don't know their head from their ass. Further, is M$ were to offer them $$$$, they'd sell their mothers; of course after selling out all of the Linux devotees first.
ESR = bad news = fuck yourself.
Suppose I come up with a new license, and want it certified.
How much are the OSI going to charge for this?
N
I took ESR's comments to read that the "OSI
Certified" logo would refer to the type of
licence that you used. ie. Provided the license
has the blessing of OSI, you could slap the logo
on any piece of software that you've slapped the
license on.
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
What the hell does that mean? The mark is "too descriptive?" I believe the term "Windows" was a descriptive term in widespread use long before Microsoft trademarked it... What was the reason given by the trademark office for why they won't allow you to register it? From what I understand, they just wanted a better description of what "Open Source" was meant to certify.
Carl Thompson
Why do I have this sudden image of the "real" seal that adorns every real-milk product now? :)
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
This seems way too Microsof-ish for my taste. Here's another "buzzword" for mindless drones to pick-up on and jabber about endlessly:
1st Manager: "We just install product X. Works like a charm!"
2nd Manager: "But is it OSI Certified?"
1st Manager: "Of course it is. I wouldn't even bother to look at it if it wasn't".
See what I'm geting at? Joe-user (or Joe-Manager) will get into the mindset that anything that isn't OSI Certified sucks. I for one have a few projects going, all I consider "Open Source" that are released under the GPL. What's this OSI-Certified going to do for me? Nothing. I don't care if my projects are certified or not. I write them because I need a program/app/whatever that does a specific purpose and I put it in the "public domain" for anyone else who also might have a use for such a beast. Why should I care if anyone does, or doesn't? The project (hopefully) fulfills my requirements (it's original intent, remember?) and that's all I need. Isn't this the true origin of "Open Source Software"?
I'm not looking for a flamming argument. I just think the mindset of "Open Source" has changed from people marching to the beat of their own drummer to a "Corporate Domination Machine".
Oh well. At least nothing is forcing _me_ to use strictly OSI-Certified software (..well, not yet anyway).
Maybe folks should stop worrying about the
personalities involved and talk about the issues
instead?
I'd also like to remind folks that when the Open
Source trademark was applied for the community
had just fought off the theft of the "Linux"
trademark! I'd guess that when BP went after
the Open Source trademark that was part of
his thinking. Correct Bruce?
Now - do we need it?
The article that announced the denial of the
trademark said that the community was
hypocritical to apply for it since we were
constantly gripping about others that hid
their software behind the same laws! I'd
challenge this arguement by stating that
the Copyleft and it's ilk are doing
exactly the same thing!?! The law provides
a mechanism to create software that may be
protected/distributed under the control of
the creator....thus Copyleft and the myrid
other license. The trademark system is just
playing by the same game to protect the
ability to KNOW the software is what you
think it is...not some corporate marketing
trick.
So - I believe the original announcement
article was so much tripe, and that we
DO need such protection. Heck, it's playing
by the system that's in place.
Steve Wilson
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
OSI Certified means the software is open. Public Domain software is open, but only incidentally. Company B can easily take the software (even without mods) and re-release closed with the same name. How evil is THAT??
Major market confusion thus weakening the power of the OSI mark.
--
"Please remember that how you say something is often more important than what you say." - Rob Malda
Concentrating less on "freedom" (as in FSF) does have its drawbacks, but since Open Source has gotten into our lexicon, something should be done about this term.
If the term is too generic that it cannot be trademarked, then fine. Coming up with "OSI Certified" sounds OK to me (I just don't want to see Open Source Certified Engineers...!). It would be nice to have some sort of protection against people abusing terms like "Open Source" etc. I mean, COME ON... even Microsoft has gotten into the act, and they are proprietary as hell.
However, Eric's message leaves me a bit uncertain as to how the process will be provided.
Will every bit of software that wishes to be "OSI Certified" need to be submitted to the magnifying glass of the OSI? This would look like it would be a difficult job for OSI to provide, and might be expensive.
Or, would OSI have some pre-written licenses (like the GPL) that people can copy unmodified and use the "OSI Certified" mark? This would be easier, especially if you consider that a lot of open source projects are being done by people that don't have access to lots of money. And if a company decides that these standard licenses aren't suitable, due to various reasons, they could either forgo the "OSI Certified" mark, or they could have OSI examine their licenses and either bless them individually, or give hints on how to achieve OSI's blessing.
This alternative (which may be what OSI is considering) would seem to me to be easiest for the typical hacker project, and give flexibility to those that need special consideration.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
The Open Source Concept is being embraced by many, and that is succesfull for all of us. But my dear friend, please remember that this "success" not belongs to anybody in particular. Users, Developers, Supporters, Real Media...there's so many people out there that shares this success...we all should be carefully on how we split this big success cake...
;)
Anyway, the real issue here is start the "OSI Certified" Logo contest
Heck, if "open source" was a trademark, you'd have to go and put "tm" with it whereever you use it, and the OSI could control the usage of that term. At least "OSI certified" doesn't give direct control of the term "open source" to one organization. What if Microsoft or the new triumvirate (AOL-Netscape-Sun) try to pay off the OSI with huge quantities of money so they can control the usage of the term "open source"? At least they can't do that now.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
ESR invented the term. Therefore, he can own the term--as long as it doesn't become a generic, like Kleenex.
But it has.
It's not so evil to trademark "Open Source". Coke and Pepsi are nearly the same drink, but they have different trademarks. If OSI turned evil, we could always call it "source-available" or "code-included" or something.
However, pointy-hairs have been seeing only the ``Free'' part of Free Software, and as such thought that there was no way that anybody could make money off of it.
The term Open Source was thus coined by (correct me if I'm wrong) a combination of Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond, aka esr. They formed the Open Source Initiative, the prime meaning of which was to enforce the Open Source Certification. If I'm not mistaken, Bruce Perens, operating for Software in the Public Interest, SPI, attempted to register the trademark Open Source.
Why register it? Why indeed. If not registered, any company with a license - like Apple with its APSL - could claim to be Open Source, even if it didn't fit the Open Source Definition (which, incidentally, is based upon the Debian Free Software Guidelines.)
As it turns out, ``Open Source'' can't be trademarked. Neither, I would assume, can ``Free Software.'' This doesn't negate the fact that the only true Free Software licenses are those which comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the OSD; regardless of what a company says its license is, you can rely on people like rms and esr and those folks on debian-legal to tell you the pitfalls, if any, of a license.
Basically, if a license can't be OSI Approved, it isn't Free Software or Open Source - which doesn't mean it can't be called Open Source or Free Software. As in all things, you must investigate to see whether or not a company's claims are true.
The sentence, "This product conforms with the Open Source Definition" will only make sense to people who know what the OSD is. If there is an OSD-compliant logo, business types can be trained to start equating that logo with "plays well with others", "our IS guys can customize/improve it", and "we can choose our support contract". The sentence will make no sense to most business types, but the logo might.
As a side note: we live in a post-literate society. We are literate, but we expect a lot of important information to be portrayed graphically. This is a sort of heraldry, where simple patterns signify complex concepts. Mere words don't cover it anymore.
--The basis of all love is respect
Yes, thats exactly the kind of attitude that we don't want. Having people blindly trust a product because of a certification mark is what got us into this trouble in the first place.
How about OpenSource (No space, capital O, capital S) Corporate America often does stuff like that. Then you could be talking about open source or you could be talking about an OpenSource(tm) program.
I'm not saying YOU are trying to take all credit...
But many people around here TENDS to talk in first person too much...I and I and I.
Maybe there's lack of WE and WE and WE...
But this is general and no personal.
WE need to put efforts to show ONE community instead of many individual persons.
Just a thought...too much cafeine.
If Microsoft can trademark 'Windows', Intel the letter 'i', Sun Microsystems 'Java', and oracle(?) 'Network Computer'... why can't OSI trademark 'Open Source'? Has the phrase been in prior use? ever? This isn't about branding and adding value to the trademark, this is about protecting the *definition* of the word. What is gonna stop Al Gore from using the phrase on his Y2K compliant website?
Ugh.
Look, *we* (i.e. the people who are In The Know about Free Software) understand that the Free Software movement is unstoppable due to its very nature. But the unwashed masses can't understand it. They need a person's name. A company's name.
That's why RedHat is whomping ass in the Linux distro market. Not because it's great, but because it has the name.
That's why ESR is the official advocate of Linux. Not because he's the best possible advocate, but because things headed in that direction in the beginning and now people listen to what he has to say, even though it isn't necessarily more valid than what others have to say.
That's just the way it is. Deal with it.
Gosh, I never thought it would be possible to push so many self-inflating insults and misunderstandings into a mere five-line posting:
>>Oh yeah..who appointed ESR to be the spokesman or all things Open Source ? Himself ?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact Himself did, and you know what, so could you! The fact that he actually has something to say might be of note, however.
>>And why would anybody trademark a concept as pure as Open Source, unless they were in it for the money.
I guess that means you think Bruce Perens is "only in it for the money." That ought to get a good laugh from him. And an apology from the likes of you.
>>It's okay for Mr. Torvalds to trademark Linux. It ain't ok for ESR or any self-appointed hypocrite to trademark anything attached therewith.
But I guess it's OK for any self-appointed A.C. hypocrite to whine about it.
>>ESR ain't no Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox, so don't glorify him for nothing.
This raises the curious issue of exactly who it is who is "glorifying" ESR "for nothing." Actually ESR is rather like Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox in that he has written some good code and managed some good open source projects.
This is not to say I always agree with ESR. I don't, but from what I can tell, having met the man as well as read quite a bit of his writing, "what you see is what you get." No hypocrisy, no double standards, no hidden agendas.
I normally wouldn't engage in responding to this kind of mindless attack, but it bears repeating from time to time that NOT hitting the Submit button is often a good idea.
--------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
Posted by d106ene5:
So now we all have to get ESR to rubberstamp our projects?
God, the open source movement is just full of little dictators.
How does this suggestion sound - let's do what we feel is right and avoid polishing ESR's ego by laying our offerings before him for his nod of approval.