3 ms·
> the use of the term "Open Source" is used solely in reference to software distributed under OSI Approved Licenses. so isn't the "open source" a trademark?
by type0 6y ago
> the use of the term "Open Source" is used solely in reference to software distributed under OSI Approved Licenses.
so isn't the "open source" a trademark?
- kube-system 6y agoNo. As per the first sentence: > OSI, Open Source Initiative, and OSI logo ("OSI Logo"), either separately or in combination, are hereinafter referred to as "OSI Trademarks" and are trademarks of the Open Source Initiative. They are saying they won't permit you to refer to "OSI", "Open Source Initiative", or use their logo unless you also follow their definition of "open source". You can call anything "open source". You can't call anything "OSI open source".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ece 6y agoIn their trademark guidelines they say: "Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo." As a listed example it's unacceptable to say: "Open Source Project." It's fair for the OSI to try and protect branding of FOSS as increasing user freedoms. I think ethical source licenses are doing the same within a broader human rights framework (others may disagree). SSPL on the other hand is decreasing freedoms without question, you can't start a competing service without onerous disclosures that have little do with the software in question. Other licenses in the same vein are even more explicit in their discontent of any contributions, but development is done in the open. It's fair to call the later "source available" which is an accurate representation of what they are doing or make up another name like the ethical source people did.