2 ms·

That makes complete sense though? They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it. As for the list, see [0]. [0] ht

by Etheryte 10mo ago

That makes complete sense though? They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it. As for the list, see [0]. [0] https://opensource.org/about/authority https://opensource.org/about/authority

evanelias 10mo ago
They applied for a trademark and were rejected due to the term being too generic/descriptive. It has nothing to do with whether they hold IP. That list doesn't appear to be "legally binding" in a general sense; to me, the way you worded that implies "there is a law saying OSD is the definition of open source in this country" which is very far from the case. Instead that list appears to be specific cases/situations e.g. how some US states evaluate bids from vendors, or how specific government organizations release software. And many things on that list are just casual references to the OSI/OSD but not laws at all.
- Etheryte 10mo ago
  A trademark is literally a form of IP. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
  - evanelias 10mo ago
    I didn't say a trademark isn't a form of IP. I said their application for a trademark was rejected due to "open source" being too generic/descriptive, not due to the reason you directly asserted above ("They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it"). You can read more about this at https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... or https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/open_source_initiative_gives_up_on_trademark/ https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/open_source_initiative... among many other sources. Or a much longer blog post from a lawyer who is active on HN: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Property https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Proper... fwiw, a non-OSI attempt to trademark "open source hardware" was also rejected for the exact same reason. https://opensource.com/law/13/5/os-hardware-trademark-rejected https://opensource.com/law/13/5/os-hardware-trademark-reject...

evanelias 10mo ago

They applied for a trademark and were rejected due to the term being too generic/descriptive. It has nothing to do with whether they hold IP. That list doesn't appear to be "legally binding" in a general sense; to me, the way you worded that implies "there is a law saying OSD is the definition of open source in this country" which is very far from the case. Instead that list appears to be specific cases/situations e.g. how some US states evaluate bids from vendors, or how specific government organizations release software. And many things on that list are just casual references to the OSI/OSD but not laws at all.

Etheryte 10mo ago
A trademark is literally a form of IP. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
- evanelias 10mo ago
  I didn't say a trademark isn't a form of IP. I said their application for a trademark was rejected due to "open source" being too generic/descriptive, not due to the reason you directly asserted above ("They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it"). You can read more about this at https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... or https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/open_source_initiative_gives_up_on_trademark/ https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/open_source_initiative... among many other sources. Or a much longer blog post from a lawyer who is active on HN: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Property https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Proper... fwiw, a non-OSI attempt to trademark "open source hardware" was also rejected for the exact same reason. https://opensource.com/law/13/5/os-hardware-trademark-rejected https://opensource.com/law/13/5/os-hardware-trademark-reject...