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

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:44:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 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.

Well, lets put it this way Russell. The Open Source definition is
essentially a word for word copy of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. Furthermore, the "mark" is essentially short hand way of
referring to that definition. If that isn't enough for you, the fact
that the OSI group started out as a SPI committee and the fact that
all the paperwork for the domain and the mark were filed by SPI
representatives also paints a reasonably compelling case.

Now, its true that with enough money and lawyers you can get a court
to do some pretty weird things, but I wouldn't want to be footing the
bill for this case out of _my_ pocket.

Then again, maybe this will give Eric something to do with the big
steaming vat of VA IPO stock he is getting for being their
"conscience". That, especially with the valuation boost VA will get
from OEMing Debian, would be an irony of genuinely comic proportion.

E

ps. All this jabber is me, not SPI board, talking

pps. Please don't get mad, I'm not trying to flame, I promise.

--
Ean Schuessler Director of Strategic Weapons Systems
Novare International Inc. A Devices that Kill People company
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke