Subject: Re: new licensing model
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:28:33 -0500

Matthew Seth Flaschen scripsit:
> 
> From: Nikolai <n_k@au.ru>
> 
> > Sounds like someone holds a monopoly on what open source is. If so, who 
> > is monopolist?
> 
> Obviously, you don't know what a monopoly is.  However, it is true
> that OSI has established and trademarked the term "open source."
> The founders of the organization were the first to use the phrase.
> Thus, they have the right to say what they think it means.  It is
> alright for others to have different understandings of the phrase.
> The OSI, however, will continue to use the meaning enshrined in the
> OSD and will not change that definition substantially.  Most users of
> the phrase agree with the OSI's meaning anyway.

In fact, trademarks *are* monopolies, though fairly harmless ones,
because if "Phoenix" and "Firebird" turn out to be trademarked, you can
always rename your product "Firefox".

"Open Source", however, is *not* a trademark of the OSI or anyone else,
at least not in the U.S., for the same reason that "Apple" would be
unusable as a trademark for apples (though perfectly good for both music
and computers).  The OSI trademark is "OSI Certified".

Finally, using "open source" in a non-standard way doesn't help anyone;
it leads to nothing but confusion and annoyance.

-- 
May the hair on your toes never fall out!       John Cowan
        --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo)         cowan@ccil.org