3 ms·
Sorry I didn't clarify -- They came up with a phrase that, while it existed, didn't have a concrete definition. To give an example, if someone right now wants t
by cycloptic 6y ago
Sorry I didn't clarify -- They came up with a phrase that, while it existed, didn't have a concrete definition. To give an example, if someone right now wants to create "Source Available Initiative" or something like that I think that would conceptually be fine, even though the term is already in use, there is no organization that is clearly defining what it means. Does that explain it better? (Although I think creating more organizations like this is a terrible idea for other reasons, mostly having to do with license proliferation)
- chrisseaton 6y ago> "Source Available Initiative" or something like that I think that would conceptually be fine I can understand that position but... they tried to trademark just 'open source' - without the 'initiative' part. They were told to rod off by the USPTO because you're not allowed to do that, so it's not ok by the law, whatever you think of it.
- cycloptic 6y agoI wasn't speaking of the trademark, you don't need a trademark to publish and promote a public definition of a term. Misusing that term doesn't have legal consequences but it won't stop people from getting upset at you for misleading them, e.g. your customers getting miffed when they learn the "open source" option you provide actually means they can't do anything with the source at all that they would expect to be able to do with the popular Apache/MIT/GPL/BSD options. (Correct me if I'm mistaken, but just those 4 licenses seem to be used for the vast majority of open source now)