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

Nils Lohner writes:
> 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?

Your own draft keeps referring to it as a "mark". If you don't think
it's a trademark or service mark or certification mark, then you
shouldn't call it that.

Ean S. just said "If Progressive Networks can trademark the word
"Real" for streaming audio software (which has about 4000 marks
similar to it) I frankly can't see what would stop someone from
trademarking Open Source." In other words, he sees no obstacle to SPI
re-registering for the domain name.

> As for reapplying, isn't OSI applying for the mark at present in
> some form or another (OSI certified OS or something similar)?

You don't "apply" for a mark. You just start using it.

> 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.

If you don't intend to get into an argument, then don't *present*
arguments.

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)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!