Subject: [HOWTO] reclaim "open source" as a trademark
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:00:40 +0200

[Subject changed]

On 10/16/07, Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud@engelfriet.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/search?q=%22Open+Source+Initative+Approved+Open+Source+Software%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/Articles/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.linuxjournal.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/search?q=%22Open+Source+Initative+Approved+Open+Source+Software%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=20050816092029989

Jon "maddog" Hall on Linux Trademarks
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/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