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.)
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.
I think OSI wants to certify software, not licenses. Regardless, certifcation marks cannot be applied involuntarily to a product and I doubt very much that the FSF will allow any of its software or licenses to bear the "OSI Certified" mark. I certainly don't intend to allow any of mine to be so certified since I disagree with the "open source" term.
...it'll never work. :)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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''.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There's some more history in my "Open Sources" paper here.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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
I'd assume OSI, not SPI, would trademark "OSI Certified". SPI isn't involved any longer - their only claim to involvement, the fact that I filed the registration for the "Open Source" trademark while president of SPI, just evaporated. I doubt they mind. They can have an "SPI Certified" if they want. Maybe I should have "Bruce Certified" :-), given that I'm the main author of the Open Source Definition.
Too bad we couldn't afford legal help when this all started. Aside from the hot air, all it cost was $250 (out of my pocket) and a few hours of paperwork.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If you want this, you should personally insist on GPL-ed software. But even Richard Stallman tolerates other forms of free software.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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."
I'm at such a cross-road now and I've been thinking a lot about what I should do, even if I now know that the path I set out to follow several years ago made the choice I'm making now painfully obvious.
Let me tell you something about myself. I'm 21 years old. I've spent most of my life in school, except for the last three years during which I first jumped between jobs and then started my own company together with some friends. The first thing I had to find out is why I couldn't go on with what I was doing. Simply put, I'm not happy with the work I do. There's more, deeper issues involved too, but they are not very important. The important part is that I can't go on doing what I do today.
So what are the options available to me? I could prostitute myself enough to apply for jobs at proprietary software vendors, but that wouldn't make me very happy because I would be refused the right to share information and software with my friends. I can also do one thing which has occured to me fairly recently; I can give up computers as a profession. I could probably get a job as some sort of technician or janitor and be happy doing that job and work on free software in my spare time. This is an option thats very tempting at some times, but I feel as if that option would be very much like give up the hope on free software. If I choosed that path, people would tell me that free software authors can't get paid, and I'd have no way to refute that because in my experience, they'd be right.
So giving up on computers as a profession is not an option for me if I want to continue volunteering for the free software community. The last option available to me is to try to create a job which I like, and that is what I'll try to do. At some point within the next few months, I'll quit my job and dedicate all my time to the free software community. It won't be easy because I don't have much money to work with, but I'm exploring a few options that will give me enough money so I can do this (if you have any suggestions, feel free to mail me).
I don't think you understand the full extent of this though. Perhaps noone does. What I'm telling you is that I'm willing to sacrifice my life, my computers, my books, my appartment and everything else that I own because I think that in doing so, I can make this world a slightly better place to live in.
I don't go around banging on everyones door, because I think that I can be of better use in front of a computer, hacking at free software, and this is what I do, and to this end, I give my life.
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
Until a few years ago, the term "open source" didn't mean much to anybody. It could have been trademarked then. This is a textbook example for why, if you intend to make something a trademark, you should indicate so with "TM" from the beginning. Otherwise, the term just becomes generic in everybody's mind, and the law wisely denies trademark protection then.
1. There are many Microsoft bashers. It is kind of
sad but true.
2. Linux advocates. They all like Linux for many
reason, mostly for its flexability.
3. People who want to try something different.
4. The "Open Source Software made my job easier"
people.
5. The Unix people.
6. Free software advocates. Their are many these
that watch or contribute to the GNU project
consciensly.
7. The "I want cheap software" people.
8. The people who are afraid of a future where
they are tied to Microsoft. Not quite the same
as the MS bashers.
I tried to put the various people in what think is the order of population. Of course I probably have no idea because of some peoples flamings. For example, the free software advocates have become unfashionable for some reason. Probably because some people have found out how long they can advocate free software before the "have" to play quake. Then propietary software is okay.
This is just my judgement. I haven't written a thesis or anything. Just my opinion.
--
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.
Sorry if I attempted to take all of the credit or something. It wasn't my intent.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
He, and some of the more ignorant commenters on /., don't like that we use the law to enforce fairness, with things like certification marks and the GPL, just as some people use it to enforce unfairness. Too bad, we'll keep on doing it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.