4 ms·

OSI, FSF, GNU, et al. do not have a trademark on the term "free". The OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied: https://op

OSI, FSF, GNU, et al. do not have a trademark on the term "free". The OSI once applied to the USPTO for a trademark on "open source" and was denied: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

josephcsible 5y ago
Words don't need to be trademarked to have a meaningful definition.
- hgs3 5y ago
  Who gets to decide the definition? The blog uses the definition "Note that when we say 'free' here, we mean free as in speech, not free as in beer," but I would argue "free for non-commercial use" licenses _are_ inherently free as in speech, but not beer.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But the freedom of speech applies even to commercial speech.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    > Who gets to decide the definition? The FSF. Their definition of Free Software is the accepted one. The blog post links to it. > I would argue "free for non-commercial use" licenses _are_ inherently free as in speech, but not beer No, when software is free as in beer, that's used to mean that it can be obtained free of charge. Software whose licence prohibits commercial use is by definition not Free Software, following the FSF definition, as this violates Freedom 0.
    - hgs3 5y ago
      > The FSF. Their definition of Free Software is the accepted one. Anyone can create their own organization with their own list of violations. I happen to be in agreement with the FSF on most points, but not with regards to non-commercial licenses.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  Right. The terms power and force are not trademarked, but anyone who tries to argue that physicists are using these terms incorrectly can expect to be laughed out of the room. That's as it should be.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]