OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers

munchola sends us word that the Open Source Initiative is getting tough on any vendors who claim to be open source despite not actually using a license approved by the OSI. In his blog post, OSI president Michael Tiemann writes: "Enough is enough. Open Source has grown up. Now it is time for us to stand up. I believe that when we do, the vendors who ignore our norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label."

Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

Is "Open Source" a registered trademark? If not, I don't think the OSI gets to decide which licenses are open source and which aren't.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

Yes, but interestingly enough, not by OSI [uspto.gov]. OSI owns Open Source Initiative Approved License mark [uspto.gov] and the 'OSI certified' mark.

IANAL, but I don't think OSI has a leg to stand on here.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

The trademark was applied for years ago, and then OSI abandoned it on, in my opinion, really bad legal advice (sorry, Larry, but that's how I call it). It's still a common-law mark. Maybe they should try to re-register.

Bruce

Re:

Well, maybe they can sidestep the whole lawyer/court thing by simply putting up a list of those that don't "comply" that we all can refer to. If the community is all it's cracked up to be, then it can use its economic clout to effect a change of behavior.

Re:

Then the solution here is fairly simple. Reapply for the trademark as it relates to software.

Otherwise, they have no real basis to insist that anyone stop using the term "Open Source". Just because the OSI has published a definition of "Open Source" does

Re:

In hindsight, you are correct. We were wrong to listen to Larry's advice in this regard.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

One always hopes so, but the misunderstand of people here is rather depressing. It's as if your hard work and our hard work in promoting Open Source has vanished. We're like the scaffolding that created the arch. People look at the arch and say "Oh, how beautiful" and forget that somebody had to work hard to create it.

Excepting, of course, that the analogy breaks down because people are trying to disassemble the arch and take it home, only without the scaffolding, there's no way to put it back together again. Break "Open Source" and you'll let the proprietary software vendors call ANYTHING open source.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

Well, I suggest you not get too depressed about what you are reading here, because you have astroturfing from the badgeware camp, and the generally anti-Free-Software camp, and on top of that just plain ignorance. Remember that no age field is given on Slashdot postings, and this is not the community site we had in the 90's - it was morphed to a "Geek Culture" site to make more money by the admission of its own editors.

There are lots of folks who appreciate what we have done and understand it a hell of a lot better than you are seeing here. They are in government, and industry, and everywhere. I do more public speaking than you (I'm in Europe for that at the moment) and see a lot more of them face-to-face.

Bruce

Re:

Also sad to see the Open Source mark go, I always that it nice and elegant, as Free Software was obviously out, we simply created a new name for things, and could define it.

The FairTrade commmunity has been very successful following this approach. A proper

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

Well, I wasn't accusing you. I am convinced that you really hold your opinion. But I am also convinced that there are real astroturfers out there. Even my own employer once in a while has a "Please put digg points on this" message go out to its "everyone" list. And I have heard from PR agencies who sell the fact that they can put multiple comments on Slashdot.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

Read the current registration for Open Source. It has no relation to software, so I do not think an existing registration in this case should have any bearing. Trademarks are such a convoluted device that the USPTO requires all Trademark examiners to be lawyers.

Re:Is "Open Source" a registered trademark?

You are correct. The current registration would not interfere with a registration for a certification mark for software licensing.

Re:

OSI may be wrong to assume they can push around vendors to adapt to a very strict sense of "open source"

Well, if we don't have a strict definition, think of what would happen to you. Right now, you can use any software that is Open Source. As a just plain

OSI forcing licenses?

why should they force companies to stick to a license, isn't this just OSI nearing closer to the same type of control corporation impose on their software

if there is a such a thing as true OSI then why do we need licenses? open source = you can see the source I don't think the definition should have to apply any further than that if companies dont want to

Re:

Wish I had mod points. I think you are correct in your statement. Its about someone having control. The license should be its own control mechanism and if a license doesn't live up to what its supposed to, the community as a whole will decide what happens

Re:

So, we thought we'd help you with the legal stuff.

But how are we sure that you're going to get it right?

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

open source = you can see the source I don't think the definition should have to apply any further than that if companies dont want to

The word 'open' implies more than just being able to view the source. It implies what you should be able to do with it.

We need some standards. Letting companies attach any meaning they please to a common term makes the term useless.

More than just seeing

open source = you can see the source

Sigh. I imagine you use some of this Open Source software sometimes. Please try to get your head around the fact that it would not be possible for such software to exist and for folks like you to benefit from it, unless it was developed. And it would not be developed without a developer community, and that community would not be able to do their work unless they had the right to modify and redistribute the software. Thus, Open Source must be more than just visible source code - it has to include the right to distribute and modify, and it also needs the right for you to use it. So, that's 4 things - source, use privilege, distribution privilege, modification privilege and there's a bit more. Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source, and OSI uses that Open Source Definition to classify licenses. It is not an arbitrary thing.

Bruce

Re:More than just seeing

Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source, and OSI uses that Open Source Definition to classify licenses. It is not an arbitrary thing.

Maybe I've missed something, but can you explain exactly where you and the OSI get the authority to define what the words "open source" mean?

Bob

Re:More than just seeing

Sorry, but I don't recognise yours or the OSIs authority in this matter. Also, I agree with the grandparent, open source to me means that the source code is available, nothing more, and nothing less. The term does not define that certain freedoms are available with the source code, indeed it cannot given that even under the OSI approved licenses those freedoms vary wildly. In essence, the only constant I see amongst even the official definition is that the code is available - therefore that is what the term means to me (and I assume most other people outside of the "community").

Bob

Re:

The argument is that he doesn't believe that OSI has the authority to define Open Source, and thus he doesn't view your definition as the official definition. In the absence of a trademark, the official definition probably defaults to whatever the communi

Re:

What makes your definition the official definition any more than anyone else's? If you try to sue someone who's inappropriately using the term, a judge is going to ask you the exact same thing. You're going to need a better answer than "we got there fir

Re:More than just seeing

What you are talking about is "Disclosed Source Code". It already has a name. It also has a problem. Companies go out of business. And then you get a situation where nobody can fix it.

Bruce

Re:

How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority.

The problem with this idea is that the word "Open" already had a meaning within the computing community. It did not mean "you have the right to freely distribute". It meant t

Re:More than just seeing

I contend that the only difference between Open Source and Free Software is how we promote them. Open Source is promoted to business, Free Software talks about Freedom first and is more a priori. RMS is almost agreed with this as of two weeks ago, he says that the licensing is 99% the same and he acknowledges that the campaign to differentiate Free Software from Open Source is ended and doesn't matter.

Bruce

Re:OSI forcing licenses?

open source = you can see the source

Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.

Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.

Interesting??!! Nice Try Clever Lad

The parent post is very manipulative to the point of sowing seeds of confusion. Hang on a minute while I adjust my tin foil hat....

why should they force companies to stick to a license
Because if they don't, it's very easy for an asshat abusing whatever th

Open Source License Monopoly...

So my license I make up for the hell of it with my terms that still allows anyone to view and audit my code if not approved by OSI means I can't market open source? Even though my code is open? Am I missing something about the word open?

Re:Open Source License Monopoly...

Sorry, your comment doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with who wrote the code, or the GPL. It has to do with the license of the code being compliant to the Open Source Definition, and the source code being available. If we don't demand that of people who brand their products as "Open Soucrce", anything - whether it has source code or not - will be called "Open Source".

Bruce

Re:

I gave out software as public domain calling it "open source," is that OSI blessed? Should I be shamed for not using a license?

I make my statement by just not using software that annoys me. You won't find Windows on my desktop. You don't see a 360 by my

Re:

I gave out software as public domain calling it "open source," is that OSI blessed? Should I be shamed for not using a license?

There is certainly no shame in giving out public domain software. And I think that OSI acknowledges that public domain software

Hmmm

Not using an "approved" license doesn't mean that the program is not OS. That only means that the program is not Open Source by the rules of (insert the tyranic powers you like here). I can write a program and publish it with the source with the license "Do whatever you want with it but don't call me "Shirley"". And this IS an Open Source program like it or not.

Politics sucks , but software politics sucks infinitly more. And don't get me started about software religions, of which Open Source is one of it's maximal exponents... ewwwkkk.

Re:

Actually, we're just trying to enforce our trademark on Open Source. If you don't like our trademark or our ownership of it, use a different term, like Shared Source, or Source Available. If you want to use the term that we have spent years and dollars pro

Heh..

So, they're all for open software and open licensing and open everything, but only if it's the kind of open approved by them?

Apparently it's okay to attempt to monopolise a market, as long as you're convinced that your intentions are noble. "Open Source" is not a trademark or brand name. It's a philosophy that's free to be interpreted by anyone. Including the user.

Open Source is a specific kind of software

Open Source software has licensing that conforms to the Open Source Definition and in addition the source code must be available. It is not just anything you think of. Long ago, OSI decided to abandon registration of "Open Source" alone, in my opinion on bad advice from their then legal counsel. However, it's still a common law trademark. But regardless of its trademark status, the community should not tolerate just anything being called Open Source, or you will find Microsoft using it for stuff that includes no freedom to modify, etc.

Bruce

Re:

It's not like OSI could ever stop MS from calling Vista open source

They could make it very clear that it was a lie, and I'd expect you and the rest of the community to help with that.

it would mean OSI has gained political power. Do you want that?

Well, I

Re:

I'm from Norway, you actually meet with our government on a regular basis? That's good news! I was not aware of that. Keep up the good work!

There is a technology committee of the government, and one of the members hosts me in his home several times a year

Re:Heh..

You can't put a "Free meal" label on the front of your restaurant if you don't provide free meals.
You can't put a "Open Source" label on your software package if you don't provide the source.

This is not about trademark infrigement, this is about deceptive marketing. The OSI has a good position to make such attacks, but anyone could do so, on the same ground.

Open Source branding has value - let's save it!.

The problem is that if nobody enforces standards for the "Open Source" brand, then anything, whether or not it even includes permission to modify the code or redistribute it, will be called Open Source. OSI acts to certify that software conforms to the Open Source Definition. This definition is available for anyone to read and craft a license to fit it. However, we certainly don't need more licenses - there are so many now that the combinatorial problem causes developer pain.

Bruce

Ummm, right.

Since when does OSI have power over *anything*? This would be like the American Peanut Council complaining that certain products said they "may contain peanuts," when they actually didn't.

Open Source != Free Software

Open source is about exposing your code to the general public. This enables third-party developers to more easily analyze and make use of your software. It enhances the academic community's ability to experiment with, research, and just generally make "fair use" of software.

Free software is about exposing the intellectual property contained within the code - the copyrights and patents attached to the code. It enhances the public's access to software, and hence their ability to take full advantage of their computers. More importantly, it prevents waste. For example, can you imagine the extra cost to the economy if every developer had to implement public key cryptography from the ground up?

Free software implies open source; open source does not imply free software. Please, let's not confuse the two. It would be wonderful (and arguably sensible) if Microsoft made its code open source. It would be absurd for Microsoft to release its copyright of said code.

Re:Open Source DOES equal Free Software

When I wrote the Open Source definition, Richard Stallman approved of it (in a private email) as "A good definition of Free Software". He has not written his own definition at that time. Free Software and Open Source are both names for the same thing - software licensed a particular way, and the only way they differ is that they talk about it in a different way - Open Source is a campaign directed toward business people, Free Software is not. Even RMS agrees with me on this now (we were on stage in Italy two weeks ago talking about this) although he will of course always want to be identified as a Free Software person because he feels it's most important to talk about Freedom. Once upon a time Eric Raymond did try to differentiate Free Software from Open Source, and he tried to deprecate RMS in general. That was a mistake and does not matter any longer.

Bruce

Re:

The restrictions for open source include Free Redistribution and allowing derived works. You seem to be implying that Shared Source is an open source license, which is wrong. You should really read the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] if that is what you're implyin

If it works this way..

..why not the other? I'll trademark "Closed Source", "Proprietary", "Confidential" and "Copyrighted". We'll see who'll bleed out of which orifice then.

Badgeware is the problem

Badgeware, software that requires that you place a badge on your web site, is the problem. SugarCRM is one of the offenders.

In composing the Open Source Definition, my aim was that there would be NO legal burden upon users at all. A user should be able to put OSI Certified Open Source software on a computer and go, without reading the license. That's one reason the OSD prohibited the then-popular "Educational Use Only" provision. Requiring the user to perform something - like transmit an advertising badge - is similarly unacceptable because it would place a legal burden on the user.

In practice, issues like patents and even Sarbanes-Oxley create a legal load for some users, but that is not under our developer's control. We had a license back then that imposed an attribution-related legal load on distributors: the original Apache license required attribution in some advertising. It was awkward, there was no way to implement it automatically, and it would have presented a scaling problem if hundreds of authors required attribution in - for example - an operating system distribution's advertising. The community eventually convinced Apache to drop the advertising provision.

That old Apache license has obvious parallels to more current "badgeware" proposals, but badgeware isn't a new issue for Open Source. Almost a decade ago, I reviewed the first Zope license for SPI. Zope's original submission required a web badge. I convinced their investor, Hadar Pedhazur, to make that a nice request rather than a requirement. Most people honored the request. The GPL contained an attribution provision, and still does. OSD was written to fit GPL. But the burden of the GPL's requirement was only upon developers, and it was the minimum necessary amount of attribution to communicate the author identification and the fact that the user had rights.

A developer can be especially irked when someone else labels that developers work as his own. But protecting that developer's business and taking the commercial value out of such relabeling does not require attribution. It could be done using any share-and-share-alike (GPL-like) license that closes the ASP loophole. But it's still fair for a developer to want to be attributed. I think the minimal practical goals for attribution are:

1) The developer should be able to find it.
and
2) The developer should be able to show to others.

This does not mean that the developer should require others to blow his advertising horn. Some companies already use attribution that isn't visible unless you are looking for it - it's embedded in HTML comments. In contrast, the draft Affero flavor of GPL 3 closes the ASP loophole by implementing the minimal necessary requirement for a developer to preserve a visible message informing the user of their rights. The visibility is to implement a separate goal of FSF: that users appreciate their rights and learn to demand them. Should OSI approve this new Affero license, or should it ask that FSF - rather than demanding a direct channel to users, search for that information and present the result on its own sites?

Bruce

Re:

Wow, check that out. GPLv3-licensed software is not 'Open Source'. Since it doesn't allow the use on devices with DRM/etc, it creates a legal burden every bit as much as 'badgeware' does.

While we are at it...

I get really annoyed by a lot of people who claim they are called "Matthew".

So here's what I propose: let's all agree-- citizens, press, governments, and others shall use the name 'Matthew' to refer only to people who I have granted an official MPC-Approved license and follow the official MPC approved "Matthew" practices.

Otherwise, let's face it just about any plonker could call themselves Matthew, and we really don't want that.

Yours,
Matthew.

The "Real" mark for dairy products

When all kinds of vendors were marketing fake cheese as cheese, the dairy industry got together and made up the 'Real' mark. I don't see this as anything different. I'm really happy with the 'Real' mark for dairy products, and I'm similarly happy with that sort of a mark for software products. If nobody decides that Open Source means something in particular, soon it won't mean anything at all and will be a completely useless word as applied to software.

Today it happens to be the irritating and not hugely awful problem of badgeware. Tomorrow it will be some vendor that attacks something more fundamental like free redistribution.

So, I'm happy the Open Source Initiative has taken this stand. It's the right thing to do. It's easier to monitor the reputation of one organization than it is to monitor the reputation of thousands. So we can all decide for ourselves if the OSI suddenly decides to refuse the use of the trademark to random companies that really are Open Source.

I'm shocked by all the negativity

I'm really shocked at all the negative reaction to this announcement here. This is a *great* thing. It's ridiculous for people
to take advantage of the term "Open Source" to market their products, while shipping something that isn't actually Open Source. And yes, I understand that some people quibble over whether or not the OSI definition is *the* definition of Open Source or not... hell, I may have argued that point myself in the past. But pragmatically, the OSID is the closest thing we have to a universal definition of what it means to be open source, and it's a good definition.

Let's hail this move as a good thing, to help prevent confusion in the market. SugarCRM, etc. shouldn't be going around
calling their stuff Open Source when it's not. Let them use a different term like "Source Available" or "Smart Source" or "Elephantine Lipitrude" or something, whatever.

Re:

Well, that's a great legal theory, and it might have some weight with the court, but we established the trademark, and we promoted it, and you know what it means through our hard work. Now you're trying to take my work away from me? I don't think so. Op