Some countries disallow sensitive/protected words unless a criterium is met by the organisation. For example, here's the list for the United Kingdom [0]. The de

Some countries disallow sensitive/protected words unless a criterium is met by the organisation. For example, here's the list for the United Kingdom [0]. The decision to allow or disallow a sensitive word is commonly delegated to organizations overseeing associated matters. The use of words like "Open" could signal that the company has a process for 3rd party code auditing. Whether doing it as a matter of government legislation would be a notable benefit for society, I am not sure. Perhaps an independent global accreditor could be established that does the same. While there may not immediately be penalties for using a protected phrase or word in such a scenario, there is still value in accreditation. People prefer accredited universities and accredited professionals. Over time, countries would delegate the regulation of protected word use to accreditors (as the UK did). Or an accreditor could trademark a phrase or a visual badge, and chase its wrongful users. But even then, one could argue that this would not be a net benefit to society. How would such an accreditor make money, and would that create barriers to accreditation for good faith actors? We certainly see some of that with some accreditations. Maybe we should not create more bureaucracy in the world because we believe "open" should mean one thing or another. [0]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/annex-a-sensitive-words-and-expressions-or-words-that-could-imply-a-connection-with-government https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and...