Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

Quoting Philippe Verdy (verdy_pwanadoo.fr):

> I fully meet you on your arguments. As long as
"open source" remains an
> unprotected expression, and the OSI has no legal
exclusive right on it, it's
> illusory to propagate false information about those
that use it lawfully
> even if they don't have the OSI approval.

There has been no "false information" -- nor have
you cited any, come to
think of it, Philippe.

I and others have correctly pointed out that OSI _is_
(still) the
legitimate body in charge of what "open source"
means in the context of
software.  I and others therefore can and do help get the
word out,
pointing out to occasional abusers -- those labelling
non-OSD-compliant
licensing as "open source" -- that they are
misbehaving and can expect
ongoing unfavourable results until they correct course.

You seem to claim that such activity is improper unless OSI
can
demonstrate that it is "the legal owner of the
expression".  No, sir.
This is, to be blunt, absolutely and completely false --
entirely
aside from the quoted phrase (as pointed out previously)
being
meaningless and apparently reflecting a poor understanding
on your part
of what trademark rights actually are.

> As far as I know, this expression is not a
trademark....

If so, irrelevant.


> The FLOSS community...

...has excellent dental hygeine?  (What a revolting
neologism.)

On 10/16/07, Rick Moen <ricklinuxmafia.com> wrote:

> I and others have correctly pointed out that OSI _is_
(still) the
> legitimate body in charge of what "open
source" means in the context of
> software.  I and others therefore can and do help get
the word out,
> pointing out to occasional abusers -- those labelling
non-OSD-compliant
> licensing as "open source" -- that they are
misbehaving and can expect
> ongoing unfavourable results until they correct
course.

In my lay view, "Open Source" is as defensible a
trademark relating to
software licenses as "Windows" is in relation ot
graphical user
interfaces.  Chances are extremely good that, at least in
the US and
the English Language, that both are too generic to deserve
protection.
 Basically "Open Source" has seen widespread
generic use which began
before the founding of the OSI.

Secondly as an individual who likes to study historical
linguistics, I
am not sure that there is any other basis for deciding what
is "open
source" other than trying to protect a brand.  This
means essentially
that the only legitimacy the OSI is the respect the
community gives to
the organization.  The only power is persuasive, with no
legal muscle
behind it.  This is still a concern for my business because
even
persuasive power can be effective.  Hence my decision to
submit the
PostgreSQL variant for approval.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers