Subject: Re: Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:57:39 -0800

Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@socialtext.com):

> I'm not going to engage in fisking arguments by email.  I might have
> lost your prior comments in the 100 fold thread that didn't yield that
> much substance against the GAP.

You would not be counting outright jettisoning of OSD#10, I gather
(especially given your ignoring the suggestion of an "if any" qualifying
GAP's "display of the same size" phrase).

> I'll point to a link that should help clarify the steps Socialtext has
> taken in good faith, and what we did to clarify our license.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3430

I'm intimately familar with Mr. Berlind's excellent article, thanks.
(I owe at least a tall frosty one to him, Andrew C. Oliver, and Nicholas
Goodman, whose writings on this subject are all mentioned in my
upcoming _Linux Gazette_ coverage.)

> I did amend the blog post tonight to provide a link to the license.

But _not_ to mention that your firm's licence -- which it professes to be
open source -- has never been OSI certified and that Socialtext has in
fact avoided submitting it (the outcome being predictable).  Thus,
you're happy to continue, in effect, misleading the public.

> We did not submit the SPL which is consistent with OSD [...]

...other than OSD#10, and substantively #3 (especially given the bit
about "the very bottom center of each user interface screen", which
makes derivative works using two such codebases under your licence
_impossible even in theory_).

> -- and instead sought to address the general problem we all face
> through the GAP.

To repeat, that was commendable.  However:

> And we would never use the OSI Certified mark unless under an OSI
> approved.  That's the point.

No, sir, that is very assuredly not the point.  Your firm lacks anything
like the clear degree of fault Sapienter displays, but regrettably seems
(along with SugarCRM) to have been a key part of the problem I cited --
and evidently wishes to continue being one.  Yours and the others are
thus the reason I requested a measured, reasonable response from the
OSI Board.

I might as well use space here to thank Compiere, which until recently
used an MPL 1.1 + "Exhibit B" clause licence, but within this past month
seems to have ended the practice and joined the open source world.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen