reclaim "open source" as a trademark

[Subject changed]

On 10/16/07, Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoudengelfriet.net> wrote:
[...]
> OSI may by now be able to reclaim "open
source" as a trademark,

I agree. Here's HOWTO:

1. Someone relatively well funded (e.g. Chris DiBona of
Google or some
venture capitalist like Larry Augustin) hires one William R.
Della
Croce Jr. of Boston.

2. One William R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston makes what
appears to be
the first legal claim that "open source" is a
trademark -- one that he
owns -- and starts demanding ten percent (or more) royalties
from
socialtext (stealthy approved CPAL), nirph (can't see
license terms)
and plumeria.sourceforge.net ("Released under the GNU
General Public
License v3"):

http://www.google.com/se
arch?q=%22Open+Source+Initative+Approved+Open+Source+Softwar
e%22

3. OSI joined by President Emeritus Eric Raymond and also
Bruce Perens
files a PETITION TO CANCEL REGISTRATION asserting that
"open source"
is a generic term of art:

http://lwn.net/Articl
es/148228/
(Petition to Cancel)

4. Nothing happens.

5. OSI joined by President Emeritus Eric Raymond and also
Bruce Perens
hires (pro bono) Eben Moglen's law firm SFLC and SFLC sues
one William
R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston on behalf of OSI joined by
President
Emeritus Eric Raymond and also Bruce Perens.

6. The litigation takes its course and reaches settlement.
As part of
settlement agreement "open source" trademark is
legally assigned to
OSI (by settlement, not by court ruling).

http://www.l
inuxjournal.com/article/2559

8. A newly formed www.opensourcemark.org becomes the
official website
of the Open Source Mark Institute, exclusive licensor of
open source
trademark on behalf of its owner, OSI:

http://www.linuxmark.org/
("exclusive licensor...")

9. All http://www.google.com/se
arch?q=%22Open+Source+Initative+Approved+Open+Source+Softwar
e%22
licensors enjoy the status of "approved sublicense
holders" (pay no
fees) regarding rights rightfully owned by the "Open
Source Mark
Institute". Non-approved "sublicense holders"
must pay fees:

http://www.linuxmark.org/
("approved sublicense holders pay no fees")

10. Profit!!!

Also see:

The Linux Trademark - Tempest in a Teapot
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005081609202
9989

Jon "maddog" Hall on Linux Trademarks
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-a
us/2005-August/msg00084.html

Hth.

regards,
alexander.

--
"To show the falsity of 'PJ''s claims, in most cases I
need look no further
than Groklaw itself. 'PJ' wants more journalists to use the
site as a
resource, so I'll do just that. Below are excerpts from my
story that 'PJ'
says are incorrect, followed by 'PJ''s characterization of
them, and my
response -- at times taken directly from Groklaw."

                                    -- http://tinyurl.com/2mn3jc