Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee
Lynn Winebarger writes:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > We're the ones who figured out
> > that "Open Source" isn't protectable.
> You're the ones who decided "Open Source" isn't protectable. Whether
> or not it is is another matter.
I don't mean to threaten you (because after all, I don't think "Open
Source" is a trademark), but if push came to shove, who would a judge
say owns "Open Source"? The Open Source Initiative, which has been
certifying licenses as Open Source, or Software in the Public
Interest? Remember, your registration application expired without
action on your part. Now you're talking about re-applying for a
trademark which as far as everyone can tell belongs to someone else.
This is not rational behavior.
-russ nelson <email@example.com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!