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

Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee

In message <[🔎] 14375.40801.724084.293607@desk.crynwr.com>, Russell Nelson 
>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.

As far as I know there has been no talk of SPI reapplying for the mark- can 
you please give me a reference for this statement?  As for reapplying, isn't 
OSI applying for the mark at present in some form or another (OSI certified 
OS or something similar)?

As for the registration expiring, it took over a year iirc to get the 
materials from Bruce, who was on the OSI board.  We never got the chance to 
continue the work.  This, I would argue, is more irrational (an argument can 
be made for it being illegal as well, possibly) than the behavior you accuse 
us of above since the USPTO had SPI listed as the registrant.

I don't intend to get into an argument over this since its in the past, but 
I just wanted to straighten out a few of the facts that have brought us here.

Regards, Nils

Reply to: