use/ownership of "Open Source"

["Andrew G . Feinberg" <agf@debian.org>]

First off, I am not going to claim to know alot about the inner workings of
SPI. I am not going to claim to be any kind of uberauthority on any subject.
However, I am going to state my opinion, and solicit feedback.

The term "Open Source" is owned by SPI as a certification mark.
"Open Source" has become a rather popular term in the computing industry. 
However, we do own the mark, and we have neglected the fact that we can legally require people to comply with the Open Source Definition. This neglect has 
allowed groups like Apple and random people (Al Gore?) to misappropriate 
the mark for  their own purposes. I am going to propose a rather radical idea 
here:
	We (SPI and the Free Software community) need to assert control over
	our ideas. This includes management of the Open Source mark. We cannot
	allow people to dilute the meaning of Open Source. I see the mark as
	being alot like Microsoft's "Designed for Windows NT" program...a
	project may display an Open Source logo (hey..theres an idea) and 
	use the term "Open Source" in its advertising and other documents
	as long as the project complies with the OSD. We do not need to
	certify every single project out there, only point out to people who
	misuse the mark that they are in the wrong, and perhaps enfore
	compliance (cease-and-desist letters, etc?). 
We routinely bitch at people who try to restrict our rights in the name of
"Intellectual Property." Why can't we protect ours when people try and use it
against us? I would like to know people's feelings on the subject...if your
reply is private, please direct it to me, but otherwise, share it with the
list.

Andrew
-- 
Andrew G. Feinberg agf@debian.org andrew@ultraviolet.org
Pager: 1-888-950-5050 PIN 6093780
PGP Fingerprint 78 55 2B B4 A7 B2 96 FF  84 BA 4A 3F 23 82 DD 80
(If this is not related in some way to the Debian Project, please direct replies to andrew@ultraviolet.org)