> All the OSI did was take an existing philosophy, scribble some new restrictions in crayon, and called it Open Source(tm)(c)(pat. pending). I am starting to b

> All the OSI did was take an existing philosophy, scribble some new restrictions in crayon, and called it Open Source(tm)(c)(pat. pending). I am starting to believe that the greatest mistake of the FSF and OSI is exactly that. They did not trademark the terms. And this resulted in endless debates about free as in beer vs free as in speech (vs free as in puppies :P ) and on the meaning of open and on shared source vs open source. Stallman likes to call the GPL and copyleft a "hack" on top of copyright or a "hack" of copyright. Unfortunately Stallman was never opposed to IP as a whole. He is only opposed to software (only) pattents. If he were opposed to all IP he might have had the idea to "hack" the trademark system and use it to prevent all of this confusion using the threat of lawsuits. After all FLOSS is full of benevolent dictators. Now we are stuck with "free", "open" and "libre" freely being redefined to suit the PR needs of anyone.