Subject: RE: BitTorrent
From: "David A. Temeles, Jr." <dtemeles@nvalaw.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:35:04 -0400

Brian C wrote:

>But if you don't want people to include the phrase "Open Source" in the 
>name of their license unless it is in fact OSI-approved, then OSI could 
>simply ask BitTorrent to submit their license for formal approval to 
>resolve that (or OSI could step back from its current policy of 
>requiring steward-submission and simply opine on its status without 
>being formally asked).

>Maybe it makes sense in the case of software licenses to worry about 
>the usage of the phrase "open source" but in dozens of other usages the 
>toothpaste is already out of the tube and there's not going to be any 
>stopping people from talking about "open source politics" or "open 
>source biology" or what-have-you.
_______________________________________________________________________


My response:

On what basis can OSI preclude anyone from designating their software
license as "open source"?  I am new to this list, but I cannot comprehend
how OSI would have the legal right to preclude anyone from using the phrase
"open source" in any fashion.  OSI could, however, prevent a party from
claiming that its license is OSI-approved...

Dave
David A. Temeles, Jr.
Temeles & Temeles, PC
703.354.7905 x 230 (Tel)
703.354.7905 (Fax)
dtemeles@nvalaw.com
1616 Anderson Road, Suite 101
McLean, VA 22102

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to
this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify David A. Temeles, Jr. immediately at either (703)
354-7905 x 230 or at dtemeles@nvalaw.com, and destroy all copies of this
message and any attachments

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian C [mailto:brianwc@ocf.berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:38 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: BitTorrent

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Who has the most incentive to make sure that the term "Open Source" has
> consistent meaning in Wikipedia? And that licenses that claim to be open
> source actually are? At least we have OSI and license-discuss colleagues
to
> help us out.

BitTorrent calls the license it wrote (based on the Jabber license) the
"BitTorrent Open Source License" (see it at
http://bittorrent.com/license.myt ). The folks at BitTorrent have never
submitted it to OSI for approval, but because the modifications they
made to the Jabber license (which is approved) are so minute, IF it ever
were submitted by its stewards, then I would bet it would be approved.

But if you don't want people to include the phrase "Open Source" in the
name of their license unless it is in fact OSI-approved, then OSI could
simply ask BitTorrent to submit their license for formal approval to
resolve that (or OSI could step back from its current policy of
requiring steward-submission and simply opine on its status without
being formally asked).

Maybe it makes sense in the case of software licenses to worry about the
usage of the phrase "open source" but in dozens of other usages the
toothpaste is already out of the tube and there's not going to be any
stopping people from talking about "open source politics" or "open
source biology" or what-have-you.

Brian Carver