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
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
Allowing other people to distribute Apple-copyrighted code would be viewed as contributory infringement. As I said before: Everyone else is going to do it; Apple is telling you they're going to do it.
I'm reminded of Mondale in the debate against Bush: "Bush is going to raise taxes. I'm going to raise taxes. The difference between us is that I just told you, and Bush won't." Or something like that.
Basically, software patents suck, and it's not Apple's fault that they exist. -russ
Well, actually, this is very libertarian. Libertarians want to use the market whenever the market works better than government (anarchists don't care -- they never want to use governments). Markets work best when reputations can be preserved, and that means being able to identify a reputation with a name. And that means a trademark system.
Libertopia would have a trademark system, and not an awful lot of government. -russ p.s. if you don't see any value in being able to call your software "OSI Certified Open Source", then don't! It's a free world. p.p.s. watch your fucking language.
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
Trust me, we went round and round and round with Apple on this. They are quite sure that, as an American company, they are bound by American law not to infringe on other people's patents. Essentially what they are doing is telling you what they are going to do if they are threatened by a patent. Any other vendor is going to stop distributing infringing code -- it's either that or put themselves in an impossible legal situation. Apple is just letting you know what's going to happen. Why give them such shit for it? -russ
Linus said that it was a "done deal". A friend of mine who works on support chipsets told me that it's already running on the Merced simulator. I think that's why our fearful leader can say that with such confidence. -russ
Nahhhh. Everybody at the lunch that ESR attends will be a brownshirt. Slated to die from the beginning of the episode. Me, I'd bring a brown bag that day. -russ
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
Hey Sierra, your old games are still worth playing. Port 'em to Linux. The DOS versions should port pretty easily, since they don't require an awful lot of the machine. -russ
I've got nearly every Sierra game worth having (that is to say, the non-scary ones), and I'll buy Linux versions if they produce 'em. It's one HECK of a lot easier than dealing with DOS nonsense. -russ
If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed that *this* Tux had boobs. And no, the girl leading heR around wasn't Marilyn Manson (who's a guy) but instead was one of those "I'm so pretty I have to make myself ugly so the guys don't drool on me" girls. Hey, it's either that, or walk around handing out spittle sacks. -russ
Here's a picture of the slashdot effect. This is the local ISP who usually has more incoming than outgoing traffic. That is, until my pictures hit slashdot, where it suddenly reversed. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
He's already given you your answer . You just didn't read it far enough.
-russ
Reducing risk provides value to people. If you don't see that, you won't bother to have your software certified.
-russ
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
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
Allowing other people to distribute Apple-copyrighted code would be viewed as contributory infringement. As I said before: Everyone else is going to do it; Apple is telling you they're going to do it.
I'm reminded of Mondale in the debate against Bush: "Bush is going to raise taxes. I'm going to raise taxes. The difference between us is that I just told you, and Bush won't." Or something like that.
Basically, software patents suck, and it's not Apple's fault that they exist.
-russ
Well, actually, this is very libertarian. Libertarians want to use the market whenever the market works better than government (anarchists don't care -- they never want to use governments). Markets work best when reputations can be preserved, and that means being able to identify a reputation with a name. And that means a trademark system.
Libertopia would have a trademark system, and not an awful lot of government.
-russ
p.s. if you don't see any value in being able to call your software "OSI Certified Open Source", then don't! It's a free world.
p.p.s. watch your fucking language.
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
Yes, we can have a certification mark "OSI Certified Open Source Software".
-russ
Right. We will certify any software that uses the GPL without a second thought.
-russ
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
Trust me, we went round and round and round with Apple on this. They are quite sure that, as an American company, they are bound by American law not to infringe on other people's patents. Essentially what they are doing is telling you what they are going to do if they are threatened by a patent. Any other vendor is going to stop distributing infringing code -- it's either that or put themselves in an impossible legal situation. Apple is just letting you know what's going to happen. Why give them such shit for it? -russ
Linus said that it was a "done deal". A friend of mine who works on support chipsets told me that it's already running on the Merced simulator. I think that's why our fearful leader can say that with such confidence.
-russ
Nahhhh. Everybody at the lunch that ESR attends will be a brownshirt. Slated to die from the beginning of the episode. Me, I'd bring a brown bag that day.
-russ
"Windows" is just as poor a trademark as "Open Source", yet Microsoft manages to defend it.
-russ
You mean, like the OSD?
Sorry, but you're inventing a wheel.
-russ
Ever seen 'em in the same room? I rest my case.
-russ
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
Oh, so you mean that RMS isn't a hacker?
-russ
p.s. duh.
The fact that you don't know how much ESR has done for the net is proof positive that ESR doesn't have a big ego.
-russ
Hey Sierra, your old games are still worth playing. Port 'em to Linux. The DOS versions should port pretty easily, since they don't
require an awful lot of the machine.
-russ
I've got nearly every Sierra game worth having (that is to say, the non-scary ones), and I'll buy Linux versions if they produce 'em. It's one HECK of a lot easier than dealing with DOS nonsense.
-russ
MRTG is your friend.
-russ
If you'd been paying attention, you would have noticed that *this* Tux had boobs. And no, the girl leading heR around wasn't Marilyn Manson (who's a guy) but instead was one of those "I'm so pretty I have to make myself ugly so the guys don't drool on me" girls. Hey, it's either that, or walk around handing out spittle sacks.
-russ
Here's a picture of the slashdot effect. This is the local ISP who usually has more incoming than outgoing traffic. That is, until my pictures hit slashdot, where it suddenly reversed.
-russ
The only good pun is a dead pun.
-russ