[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alternative trigger condition.

Ross N. Williams writes:

> I have changed the note to:
> Note      : Because this licence permits use on free
>             platforms only, it does not satisfy the
>             requirements for use of the US certification
>             mark "open source" as defined by the mark's
>             registrants in the web site www.opensource.org.
>             Consequently, this licence should not be
>             referred to as an "open source" licence and
>             software released under this licence should not
>             be referred to as "open source". However, you
>             can refer to such software as "free software".
> which I hope is less offensive. I'm assuming it was the
> "you are free to..." part that was offensive. If it's the
> idea of referring to it as free software that's offensive then
> let me know.

The OSI doesn't hold "Open Source" as a certification mark; it holds
"OSI Certified Open Source".

Neither "open source" nor "free software" is a registered trademark,
but both have reasonably well-understood meanings which are intended
to be equivalent.  (Concretely, the Open Source Definition is
derived from a draft of a group of free software developers' opinions
on what is meant by free software.)

You are not infringing any trademarks I know of if you call your
license a "free software license" or an "open source license", but
I don't think you would manage to obtain a consensus that it
actually _is_ either of those things.

Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5

Reply to: