Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Announcements

OSI Launches Certification Program With Logo 180

Lao-Tzu writes "The Open Source Initiative has launched an OSI certification program. The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark. Python.org is the first website to carry the new OSI logo." One might ask what took so long.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSI Launches Certification Program With Logo

Comments Filter:
  • Naysaying (Score:5, Funny)

    by daeley ( 126313 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:11PM (#3844878) Homepage
    Don't mean to be a naysayer, but I'm not sure using Logo in a certification program is such a spiffy idea. How hard it is to move that turtle around, really? ;)
    • Damn it, man. I saw the headline and was ready with nearly the same smarmy remark.

      Ever actually use one of them turtle robots? Back in high school I got to visit MIT and see one in action.

      Jeesh, I just realized my children are 6 & 4 and I haven't taught them Logo yet. Where can I find a decent Logo environment for Linux or Win32?

    • by locoluis ( 69948 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:11PM (#3845558) Homepage Journal
      MAKE "PI 4 * RADARCTAN 1
      MAKE "ARADIUS 200
      MAKE "BRADIUS 100
      MAKE "ASTEP :ARADIUS * :PI / 180
      MAKE "BSTEP :BRADIUS * :PI / 180
      CS
      PU
      LT 90
      REPEAT 20 [ BK :ASTEP LT 2 ]
      MAKE "CURPOS POS
      SETPC 2
      PD
      REPEAT 140 [ BK :ASTEP LT 2 ]
      RT 90
      FD (:ARADIUS-:BRADIUS)/2
      LT 90
      REPEAT 140 [ FD :BSTEP RT 2 ]
      SETPOS :CURPOS
      PU
      HT
  • ...Certification program with Logo

    Hey, I know logo, it's the language where you draw with a turtle. At last I can be a Certified IT worker!

  • One might ask what took so long.

    One might ask what it took so long for Slashdot to mention it - it's been on the Python home page for quite a while [python.org].
  • by hoggy ( 10971 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:15PM (#3844913) Journal
    One might equally ask why it took you guys a whole month to note the launch of this certification mark...
    • One might equally ask why it took you guys a whole month to note the launch of this certification mark...

      Good point, but if you knew about it a whole month ago why didn't you post the story to /.? ( This is not meant to be a flame, simply an honest question to a complaint )
      • Are you kidding? Probably five or ten people have submitted it, and been turned down :)

        Not that I know for sure, but that's normally how article submission works around here.

      • Good point, but if you knew about it a whole month ago why didn't you post the story to /.? ( This is not meant to be a flame, simply an honest question to a complaint )

        It wasn't really a complaint, just a jibe at the editorial comment ;-)

        Actually, I only found out about it myself a week or so ago. Seeing that the news was already old then I didn't bother doing anything about it.
  • Can't think of any genius reason why a person would need this when you can just sift through pages and pages of legalese to find out the same thing. I feel bad for these folks because they'll approve (or not, but either way they're eating their lives away studying (and debating) bleeping license legalese!) any license that's thrown at them.
    Worse yet, licenses change and components can be closed sourced (right, Source Forge [vasoftware.com]?) so I don't see much but big bad headaches for these folks in return for something that really doesn't add much to the community. So it goes.
    • Good point, even with the friendliest license, things can always be changed after the fact. Especially in this legal climate.

      I should be able to toss my own code easily into the public domain and it should be safe for everyone to use with no fear of lawyerly retribution. Anything less is a failure in education and our legal system, not a lack of certifications. (Main problem being that copyright rather than requiring application is now default...)

      You want to fight the corporate abuse of copyright? Go GPL.

      You want to maximize usability for everyone? Go BSD or public domain.

      You want to make money? Go Copyright.

      You want to write your own license? Go to hell!
  • what in the world does this one means?

    Is it an "O" for open source with a keyhole or a drunken "C" tripping over itself?
  • Unfortunately (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This may end up being too-little, too-late. The OSI has frequently fallen off the map, rising up now and again to issue some bland press release or statement - perhaps this is the turning of a new leaf? Will the OSI start to update its web page more frequently and take a more active role in the community?

    Signs point to no.
  • Free software? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:36PM (#3845030) Homepage

    I wonder, why hasn't the FSF, with their decent cash hoard, done something like this?

    What if Microsoft comes out with a shared source license called "The GPL"(tm) or something? Yeah that's improbable but still I'm sure there is "branding" value in having a recognizable mark (and not just a recognizable hippy with a beard)...

    • I'm Not A Lawyer, but I believe trademarks "belong" to the first entity to use them in interstate commerce. The FSF was shipping GPL'ed software WAY back before Windows. That, and while I've never seen a "(TM)" or "®" on FSF software, using the name of a reasonably-well known product (in this case, a software liscence) as a trademark of your own in the same field just seems to be asking for trouble.

      That said, I agree, the FSF needs a new logo in this style and purpose.
    • Its been done. Its called "GNU".
  • Simpleface (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rbeattie ( 43187 ) <russ@russellbeattie.com> on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:36PM (#3845034) Homepage

    Simpleface.org [simpleface.org] is an organization trying to do a similiar thing for OSS User Interface design. We're developing a set of graphical design patterns in an open and collaborative way (using the website, it's a wiki) and once we have a decent set we're going to roll them into a guide and try to get OSS projects to use them. Those projects that comply with guidelines get to use the Simpleface logo.

    I think this type of certification is a good thing for OSS projects. It provides everyone with the knowledge that some sort of consistency has been achieved. For OSI, it's consistency of the Open Source definition. For Simpleface, it's consistency of design and human computer interaction.

    -Russ
  • Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by phpdeb ( 563275 )
    I like the idea, but there doesn't appear to be any way of regulating it. Perhaps, I didn't find that text on the web site.

    It doesn't seem to be any more powerful then saying, "Hey my stuff's Open Source. See look GPL." If your code really isn't GPL then Stallman knocks on your door and gives your titty-twisters until your nipples fall off.

    It's cool to spread the term Open Source and do some branding though, it doesn't matter.

  • OSI Logo history (Score:5, Informative)

    by Real World Stuff ( 561780 ) <real_world_stuff AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday July 08, 2002 @04:41PM (#3845062) Journal
    The OSI logo contest [lerdorf.on.ca] information might clear this up. It was conceived by ESR with some pretty specific rules [tuxedo.org]. There were a wide variety of submissions. There was a diverse interpretation of what OS was to represent. The selected image was provided by "Hilmar". Additionally, here is the index of all the submissions.here [lerdorf.on.ca]
    • I wonder who owns those non-winning submissions? Seeing as how they've been submitted into a contest and all, I'm guessing that they're just free for grabs? Some of those logos are damn nice, and would make a good addition to a page sporting open source, but not necessarily certified open source, software.
      • I wonder who owns those non-winning submissions?

        I submitted one of those non-winning logos (#196, if you're curious). If I remember correctly, it was made quite clear (rather to my annoyance) that all submissions become property of the OSI whether they're selected or not.

        Although, I can't find any verbiage to that effect on the site any more...

    • Heh, I'd totally forgotten about that contest.

      Personally, I thought my submission [lerdorf.on.ca] was the best. :-) I think I should have explicitly noted that there are arrows pointing in as well as out. Maybe it was too subtle.

      As you can see, there were plenty of other submissions based on the same idea: arrows pointing outwards (distribution of source) and arrows pointing inwards (submission of changes). However, I'd felt that none of them really took the idea and ran with it. Hence my submission.

      Actually, I'm just a little bit annoyed. I put a fair amount of work into my submission, but I understand (from the message board discussions) that the keyhole logo was the favourite, almost from the beginning. Did I ever have any chance at all? Did anyone after submission #7 have a chance?

      Oh, well.

    • The only real specific ones are the first two (height:width ratio and number of colors) And are really free-form, and seem well thought out.

      I am a bit curious what it means... I have a gpl program. Can I then put that logo on it? Probably in the faq somewhere...

  • That logo is just begging for a little s in the middle of that white circle. That would make the big cut circle look like the 'O' and coupled with the 'S' I mentioned, plus the white intersection which looks like an 'I' - which would spell 'OSI', how novel! :)
  • Public domain? (Score:2, Interesting)

    An omission from their approved license list is the most liberal "license" of all, which is "released unconditionally to public domain".
    • Re:Public domain? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SocialWorm ( 316263 )
      But public domain software might not actually meet the OSI definition. A public domain binary would not meet condition #2 "The program must include source code". That, and public domain is greatly misunderstood AND not really a license. Even the FSF isn't too fond of public domain software, albeit for the same reason they aren't too fond of BSD-style liscences.
    • 1) You have to jump through a lot more legal hoops than that in order to place your work into the public domain. In fact, merely saying "released unconditionally to public domain" would put your work into a legal limbo since it will NOT be in the public domain but people will believe it is.

      2) Public domain is not a license.
  • It's amazing what you can do with a little turtle graphics. ...
  • What's wrong with this [gnu.org] logo?

    Sorry...I know. Trolling. But what else is karma for?

  • a reference to the famous "copy down" movement...
  • Much cooler selection here.
  • we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo... YAY!!

    (ed)
  • I have seen a few other projects with the OSI Certification logo/notice. Heck, I've had it on my projects for at least a week (Modified BSD License and GPL).
    • And because you've had it on your projects for at least a week, Python isn't the first website to carry it?

      Did it occur to you that maybe python.org has had the logo for more than a week? This is slashdot, it takes about a month for 'news' to cool down enough that it can be put on the front page. Apparently.

      • Thats not what I said. I admit that I could be wrong but from what I read it sounded like the OSI certification was something brand spanking new and that python signed on to it recently. I didn't say I was the first, I just said I have had it for at least a week and have seen other projects with the mark on it for a little while now.

        I admit I could be wrong though ... maybe pything has it had since the very start and it's just getting reported now.
        • Your comment's subject says 'Python Not the First'. This seems to indicate that you thought Python was not the first. Python's web site explicitly states that it is the first to have the OSI certification:

          Python is the first website to carry the new Open Source logo. (python.org)

          It is just being reported now, despite occuring a long time ago.

  • by sheepab ( 461960 )
    I find it funny that out of all the logos that were submitted....with fancy names with many characters....the one that one was named 'hi.gif'.
  • I know they have the best intentions but, I've had it with these acronyms! OSI(Open Source Initiative), not to be confused with OSI(Open Systems Interconnect) Model, courtesy of the good old ISO(International Organization for Standardization). Yes, the last one is correct.

    I've had it with these groups, which are all in the same industry, coming up with multitudes of acronyms that all have different meanings. In some cases, even the context in which the acronym is used does not reduce the ambiguity of the acronym. Some of these acronyms are so cute I just want to wretch!

    Enough already!!
    • Internet Protocol
      Intellectual Property
      Information Protection (the name of the security group where I work)
      Implementation Plan (saw this one abbreviated today at work -- it confused the manager)
  • Change it. It *is* an Open Source Initiative, isn't it? Just make sure you abide by the GPL.
    • It's more than just a logo. It's a trademark. Like "Apache". Just try creating a "Navaho" web server product, or "Apachy" web server. You'll find some distinctly unhappy folks waving around law books.
      -russ
  • I don't think it looks so much like a keyhole, as it does the outline of the top of a person. Which makes sense. Its an "O" for open, and it puts people in the middle. How 'bout that. :)
  • by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:05PM (#3845194)
    Is the following slogan:

    Open Source built the Internet

    Because it did. All major server side software on the internet (major meaning leads its market), an Open Source application (as, of course, defined by the Open Source Definition) leads.
    • Web Servers - Apache
    • Proxy Servers - Squid
    • Email Servers - Sendmail
    • DNS - BIND9
    • FTP - WuFTPd
    • Even OpenSSH is more prominent than the proprietary alternatives (though from an end user point of view that's not really much of an argument).
    Most people have absolutely no idea this is the case. They don't realize that every time they connect to the internet they're relying on the root nameservers, all of which use Open Source software on Unix, to do their jobs. And those Open Source systems are rising to the challenge. There are people out there - including many journalist (Adam Turner from The Age is a good example if you live in Australia) who literally think proprietary Microsoft software is fundamenttal to the operation of the internet - even more so than OSS applications.

    • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:51PM (#3845457)
      Is the following slogan:

      Open Source built the Internet

      Because it did. All major server side software on the internet (major meaning leads its market), an Open Source application (as, of course, defined by the Open Source Definition) leads.


      Well, that statement actually isn't be true, and the folks at the Free Software Foundation would likely (and correctly) take exception to that claim. There really isn't any reason to create more bad blood between the Free Software people and the Open Source people, and I would be very surprised if ESR would ever make such a claim, given that the entire process preceeded his movement by a number of years.

      The internet was built using Free Software, by free software developers, back when it was still called Free Software, and the term "open source" had not yet been coined. NOTE that 'Free Software' isn't the same as GNU.

      Free Software built the Internet. Not Open Source. Not GNU. Not the Free Software Foundation.

      Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software. My only nit to pick with the open source folks is their shyness in discussing Software Freedom, but perhaps that is simply incompatible with their role, which is to extend the concepts of free source code availability to corporate Earth, to which the words Free Software and Freedom remain somewhat alien and mistrusted.

      It is rather amazing that so many corporate types, who pride themselves on a deeper understanding of capitalism than the average person (though I suspect that pride is misplaced much of the time) are unable to recognize the importance of fundamental freedom which allows free markets to operate, and instead of understanding the deep pragmatism that underlies freedom in general, and software freedom in particular, they associate it with vague notions of "idealism" that they somehow assume are therefor incompatible with business. Freedom, and software freedom in particular, are incompatible with oligarchies and monopolies, not free markets and competetive capitalism. Quite the reverse, but I digress.

      Open Source plays an important role in educating the public at large, and bringing them part way toward understanding what software freedom is about, which is why I personally regret the animosity I've seen between the OSI folks and the FSF. From my perspective OSI is the guy at the door saying "come into my shop and have a look" to someone who would have otherwise walked on by, while the FSF is the guy behind the counter explaining the fundamentals of what it is you are buying, and why.
      • "Free Software built the Internet. Not Open Source. Not GNU. Not the Free Software Foundation."

        Funny. I was under the impression that BSD software built the internet. As far as I know, 4.2BSD was the first UNIX to contain a TCP/IP stack, and you can be sure it wasn't licensed under the GPL.
        • Apache - sprang from the CERN httpd project, which has a BSD-style license.
        • BIND - was originally created by the Berkeley hackers, and had a BSD license.
        • Wu-FTPD - can't find an old version to check it's license, but it's certainly not GPLd, though the license is similar. Of course, Berkeley had a FTPd before Wu-FTPd was created.
        So, no. It wasn't built on Free Software, either. It was built on BSD.
        • Funny. I was under the impression that BSD software built the internet

          Only in part

          So, no. It wasn't built on Free Software, either. It was built on BSD.

          BSD is free software. Indeed, many of the BSD folks will argue that their software is "free-er" than GPLed software (it depends on your definition of freedom as to whether you agree with that stance or not, but either way it is irrelevant to this discussion).

          I doubt you will find any BSD developer or proponent, anywhere on the face of the Earth, that would argue that their software isn't free software, and while FreeBSD predates Open Source by many, many years, FreeBSD does not predate the FSF, or the widespread, colloqual use of the term free software used to describe it, and many other projects all of which, taken together, formed the core of what we now call the Internet.

          It is another very common myth that Free Software == GPLed software, and that is a myth that the Free Software Foundation, as well as the BSD folks, are at pains to dispell.
        • So, no. It wasn't built on Free Software, either. It was built on BSD.

          Free Software, yes. Copyleft, no.

      • by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:50PM (#3845920)
        The internet was built using Free Software, by free software developers, back when it was still called Free Software, and the term "open source" had not yet been coined. NOTE that 'Free Software' isn't the same as GNU.

        I don't think which term was coined first matters. AFAIK most of these tools were not labelled as Free Software by their authors in terms of the FSF's definition (the FSF list of freedoms). They were applications created by people who wanted to share their code with the internet, but not under a specific definition of Free Software (the FSFs) or Open Source. However all these applications are both Open Source and Free Software (in the FSF sense) because they comply with the Open Source Definition and the FSF's list of freedoms.
      • Al Gore built the Internet!
    • Don't forget the BSD TCP/IP stack!!

      BTW: great slogan, I agree they should use it.

      Best wishes

      \\Uriel

      P.S.: I think there are a few more OSS projects that built the
      internet, but the the BSD TCP/IP stack *was*(*is*?) the internet!

      P.P.S.: And for those idiots that think that Internet is only the
      Web, the NCSA browser was open source, and just check the "About"
      menu in IE, and tell me what you find there? more open source,
      even in the core of M$ products :)

      P.P.P.S.:Of course that if you are reading /. you already know
      all this, right?
  • by WEFUNK ( 471506 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:05PM (#3845195) Homepage
    I know I'm risking some karma by sort of stating the obvious, but I like how the design is very simple yet incorporates the following important elements:

    1. "O" for Open Source
    2. "C" for Certification
    3. A "Keyhole" for Security

    The "Keyhole" element also looks a little like a stylized person so I suppose it also represents the human element of the development process (community, people power) as well as the personal/functional aspects of software (built for users, usability, productivity).

    I'd also interpret the Green colour as reflecting the "natural"/"friendly" aspects of the open source process.

    Just my initial reactions, and obviously you can get carried away (it's the "product" not the logo that really counts), but I think OSI's smart to have a consistent brand for certification and that their logo choice is fairly strong and representative of the "product". I like the new logo, the only nitpicks - I'm still not sure about the font choices (OSI certified, TM) and the edges/lines/contrast seem a little too blurred.
    • The entire image could also be seen as a path heading into the distance (kinda like a road into a green sunset, I suppose).

      Not sure what that means, though ...
    • The logo is pretty good. I've looked at the loser logos and what strikes me is that none of them refer to water. Some nice ideas for logo's are shown in these pictures:

      1 [www.spa.nl]
      2 [uwyo.edu]
      3 [mcug.org.uk]
      4 [state.il.us]
      5 [hd.org]
      6 [malvern.co.uk]
      7 [upenn.edu]
      8 [bbc.co.uk]
      9 [ar.com.au]
  • For those of us who prefer not to use the term "Open Source", how about something similar from the FSF? The FSF already maintains a list of licenses that it considers free software licenses, after all, and it'd be nice to be able to show that your software is truly free, as well as supporting the FSF (make the graphic link to the Free Software Definition, perhaps).
  • Would you buy software with a logo with a huge gaping hole in it?

  • YAPHB-device (Score:3, Interesting)

    by andkaha ( 79865 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @05:11PM (#3845217) Homepage

    Yet another pointy haired boss device.

    Now I can tell my PHB it's ok for me to use Python for development at work. It's certified, with a logo even. That's all he needs to know.

    Perl was ok a long time ago, it has had that dot-com domain name for a while now. I didn't even have to argue to be able to use it.

    Seriously, is this certification anything else than a PHB pacifier?

    • Re:YAPHB-device (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hieronymus Howard ( 215725 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:10PM (#3845551)
      Your totally right, of course. This is what the OSI was created for - to 'market' free software to PHBs. That's why they coined the term 'Open Source' instead of Free Software and have introduced trademarks, logos and certification. PHBs (being creatures of habit and little brain) are reassured by such things. OSI is little more than a PHB pacifier, it's genius lies in it's simplicity. Without it, all we'd have is Stallmanism and, face it, no PHB is going to be convinced by RMS.

      HH
    • Funny you mention that. Today I did "apt-get install gopher". Seems that many of the sites for the blind were/are gopher sites.

      For what we actually use the web for, gopher seems remarkably useful. Not sure of the ins/outs of it, but certainly it would work better when I'm browsing /usr/doc

    • Certification tells you that somebody is putting their reputation on the line. You don't have to be a PHB to appreciate that.
      -russ
  • I can see why Python was so quick to adopt the new logo. It looks like "C" in a nosedive, about to crash and burn.
  • Svenska Livsmedelsverket, Gröna Nyckelhålet [www.slv.se] Anyone see the resemblence? The green keyhole is the swedish symbol for healthy food :)
  • i like the logo (not even going to talk about OSI/certifcation)

  • After our new logo [opensource.org] was featured on Slashdot, we have received a ton of email asking where to obtain a LOGO Interpreter for Linux. This is the LOGO interpreter we used to create our new, um, logo:

    ftp://ftp.anarres.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/ucblogo [berkeley.edu]

    -OSI Certification Program [opensource.org]
  • Did anyone else read that as "OSI Launches Certification Program with Logo [softronix.com]"

    Had me befuddled there - OSI initiates thier certification program by choosing that old Windows learn-to-program langauge with the turtle?

    Long day...
  • Now, how many workers at our favorite monopoly are off to the patent office to pattent thier newest 'idea' ....

    The key

    It'll happen.
  • by Fastball ( 91927 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:00PM (#3845502) Journal
    With no verbage outlining how something is "certified," I'm left to wonder how I would go about getting my project in compliance, you know, here in Brainerd. I just want to be in compliance.

    More to the point, why do I need this? If this is the last line of defense, if the text in my license isn't descriptive enough, and if I need another group/consortium to put their stamp of approval on my work, then how is my software supposed to qualify as soft. I mean isn't that what software is supposed to be? Soft?

    Man, this is getting out of hand. Why don't we all wear color coded uniforms based on whether we're trying to get something out of software development or contribute something back to it.

    The last thing I think software developers need, especially those of the open source ilk, are certifications. Standards, sure. We have a hard enough time selling folks on the quality of our stuff. Why hamstring development more with yet another hurdle? I doubt developers will curry this certification's favor.

  • by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Monday July 08, 2002 @06:01PM (#3845507)
    What happened to the TacoBell logo for the OSI model [randywanker.com]? Or did they get sued?
  • I'm all for the OSI, but I can't say I care for the keyhole symbol. The keyhole has long been a symbol of invaded privacy... y'know, people peeping through the keyhole. This association is all the more strengthened because of the term "open source", meaning "look inside the program". I don't think the general punlic is going to get a particularly positive message from this logo.
  • Some say that the Tinkertoy certification is just a paper certification while you really have to know your blocks to pass the lego exam. So I think I will going to Toy's-R-us and get me a study kit and passing the seven-11 to get me a 6 pack.
  • A Friend of mine recently authored OpenVPN which appeared in Slashdot. We were talking about ways to generate money from Open Source.

    So I suggested that the GPL be gently modified to require non-profit and government organization who use the software to submit a receipt for donated services to the author of the Open Source program as a tax rightoff. Most programmers pay 30% to 50% in taxes, so the rightoff is worth 30% to 50% face value - provided the Programmer is gainfully employed).

    This would really be a way to get the government to pay Open Source programmers for their contribution.

    Can anyone give a reason why the GPL - or "Certified Open Source" software shouldn't or couldn't include the idea of manditory donantion receipts for qualifying organizations?

    And why this wouldn't be a fair and practical approach to funding part-time Open Source Efforts?

    AIK

    • That's a rather ludricous suggestion. In what world do non-profits have the ability to grant tax exemptions, if that was legal I have a great idea for a "non profit...." Also it seems pretty stupid to try to put expense or work on non-profits rather than try to get money somehow from for-profit companies.

      You can do what dozens of people have done: dual license.

      If you write something, put it out GPL, so everybody can see how it works. Any companies that want to use your code in a closed-source product has to purchase a seperate license that costs more.

      In reality this is impractical for the individual developer, but it makes a lot of sense for large companies which have the ability to make such a sale and control of a large enough project to make purchase worthwhile.

      You can also make your own more restrictive license in attempts to make the purchased license more valuable. Typical restrictions are to limit any commercial use, or limit use to non-profit organizations, or disallow modification. For some reason RMS does not like these ideas, but it seems to me they serve the main purpose of letting people see the code.

    • Unfortunately, you can't deduct services donated to a non-profit, at least under US tax law.
      -russ
  • The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark

    While it is correct that a trademark registration for the typed phrase "OSI Certified" has been applied for by OSI, that application has been initially refused. I could find no application at the USPTO website [uspto.gov] for the logotype, apart from the typed mark.
    • I believe that the mark has to actually be in use prior to registering. Once some organizations use it, it makes a strong case for official 'registration' of it as a trademark. IANAL.
      • No, in the United States, prior use is neither necessary nor sufficient to permit registration. There is, by the way, an existing application for registration for the certification mark OSI CERTIFIED, based upon a claim of use several years old, which is presently subject to a non-final refusal from the USPTO.
  • Am I the only one who is reminded of a certain Trojan's [cultdeadcow.com] logo? You decide.
  • It looks like a Pacman just died up-side-down.
  • I haven't seen one of those since the fifties. That logo is a PERFECT representation of a "Magic Eye" tube.

    These tubes that had a cone-shaped phosphor-covered anode that lit up green, and a single grid wire that prevented electrons from striking a portion of the anode. The grid wire cast a wedge-shaped shadow on the anode. The width of the shadow varied with the grid voltage, causing the wedge to get wider or narrower.

    They were widely used a cheap substitutes for meters. They also had the advantage of being inertialess. They were most familiar as tuning indicators in radios, recording level indicators on tape recorders, and null indicators on certain kinds of lab equipment (capacitance bridges, etc.)
  • I don't know if it is just coincidence or not, but isn't that the same font that SGI use for their company logo & graphics?

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...