Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee
Nils Lohner writes:
> Do you have any other questions or suggestions for this resolution?
Well, yes. It sure looks like you're trying to duplicate our work.
This isn't going to be helpful -- instead it will cause confusion in
the marketplace. It would seem far better for you to work *with* us.
What would it take for us to work together? An SPI-appointed seat on
the board? Two? Because, right now, I don't feel like either
organization is viable. OSI's authority is being challenged by SPI's
ownership of the domain name, and by its threatened entry into the
field. And SPI seems to be fairly ignorant of what is necessary for
advocacy and certification of Open Source.
It seems to me that, like it or not, we have to work together, because
divided we will fall.
> >You don't "apply" for a mark. You just start using it.
> >
> In that case I may be missing something... just using a mark can work like
> this, but its just not a registered mark in that case (until filed with
> USPTO)?
Usage conveys the only legal authority to assert ownership of any type
of trademark. Registration just helps build your case in court if
it's ever challenged. The USPTO explicitly disclaims any grant of
ownership through registration. That's why the Linux trademark
registration got moved to Linus -- because he owned the trademark
before, and it owned it after it was registered by someone else.
--
-russ nelson <sig@russnelson.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!
Reply to: