Re: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
Chris Gray wrote: You'll also see that Going To The Media (tm) was proposed and rejected as a first approach: softly softly did it. I'll give them a call this morning, cordially mention some of the points made, and see what the reaction is. -t -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
From: Matthew C. Weigel The Open Source Initiative owns the servicemark OSI Approved Open Source Software, and that is all. Not quite! The certification mark is OSI Certified and the goods are open source software. Thus the usage is: OSI Certified Open Source Software /Larry Rosen 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
On Friday 30 November 2001 03:31 pm, Tina Gasperson wrote: ACARA (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/projects/ACARA) is a program originally developed by NASA. ACARA is now being handled by the Open Channel Foundation (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com). ACARA's license terms (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/project/view_license.php?group_id=129l icense_id=20) violate at least three points of the Open Source definition (AFAIK, IANAL), yet the Open Channel Foundation claims all of the software it distributes is open source. Is this OK from a legal standpoint? It's legally okay to use the term Open Source Software without getting permission from anyone. But some uses of Open Source Software can be considered misrepresentation or fraud, activities that are illegal. The software they are selling is not Open Source Software, yet they claim that it is. That's fraud in my book. There's no trademark on the term wool carpet, yet if I sold you a wool carpet that was really acrylic, I would be in a world of legal hurt. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Tina Gasperson wrote: Does a license have to comply with the published requirements (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html) in order for the distributor or creator of the software to call it open source? No. It is encouraged socially to 'help the end user' by using the Open Source Initiative's definition of 'open source software' in deciding whether to call one's own software such, but there is no legal impetus to do so. The Open Source Initiative owns the servicemark OSI Approved Open Source Software, and that is all. disclaimer: This is a possible NewsForge story; if you don't want to be quoted please say so in your reply. Feel free to quote me. Better yet, take a look in the archives for the instance (last week? earlier this week) of a company calling their software 'open source.' -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
The question presented is actually a very good one in my opinion because it calls out a subtle complexity with discussing open source and understanding what is really meant by the various uses (and, possibly, misuses) of the term. I think a programmer may freely identify their software as closed source, open source, or friendly source as long as there is no trade mark issue and the intent is not to mislead consumers or create unfair competition among competitors. As far as I can tell, the term or phrase open source is generic, and often used as a marketing phrase in much the same manner as diet soda is used. I cannot imagine what the legal basis would be to bring a fraud claim on the use the term open source. On the other hand, I think the member organizations representing the open source community as well as vested individuals might have some obligation to keep the press informed of what their view is of what it means to develop and distribute open source/free software as that term is used in the open source community. In this respect, I see troubling uses of the term open source in the press when covering the open source community far more frequently than I notice free-riding software developers using the term as a marketing scheme that one might say is inappropriate, but hardly illegal. OSI's OSD is a different question entirely, but that is matter for OSI, although the issue is not whether someone violate[d] the OSD. There is no legal harm arising from violat[ing] a definition. More important, the OSD needs some helpful re-working, and it may not be unexpected that some open source projects have significantly diverged from the OSD. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday 30 November 2001 03:31 pm, Tina Gasperson wrote: ACARA (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/projects/ACARA) is a program originally developed by NASA. ACARA is now being handled by the Open Channel Foundation (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com). ACARA's license terms (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/project/view_license.php? group_id=1 29l icense_id=20) violate at least three points of the Open Source definition (AFAIK, IANAL), yet the Open Channel Foundation claims all of the software it distributes is open source. Is this OK from a legal standpoint? It's legally okay to use the term Open Source Software without getting permission from anyone. But some uses of Open Source Software can be considered misrepresentation or fraud, activities that are illegal. The software they are selling is not Open Source Software, yet they claim that it is. That's fraud in my book. There's no trademark on the term wool carpet, yet if I sold you a wool carpet that was really acrylic, I would be in a world of legal hurt. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
On Tuesday 30 October 2001 08:52 pm, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: the term or phrase open source is generic, and often used as a marketing phrase in much the same manner as diet soda is used. I cannot imagine what the legal basis would be to bring a fraud claim on the use the term open source. But the term used wasn't open source. The term used was Open Source Software, including the capitalization. Open Source is being used as part of a proper name, and not as a generic adjective. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Can anyone say his or her software is open source?
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, David Johnson wrote: On Friday 30 November 2001 03:31 pm, Tina Gasperson wrote: ACARA (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/projects/ACARA) is a program originally developed by NASA. ACARA is now being handled by the Open Channel Foundation (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com). ACARA's license terms (http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/project/view_license.php?group_id=129l icense_id=20) violate at least three points of the Open Source definition (AFAIK, IANAL), yet the Open Channel Foundation claims all of the software it distributes is open source. Is this OK from a legal standpoint? There's no trademark on the term wool carpet, yet if I sold you a wool carpet that was really acrylic, I would be in a world of legal hurt. AFAIK openchannelsoftware.com has several similar offerings which are not really Open Source e.g. their NASTRAN offering (also developed by NASA) Regards, -- martin // Martin Konold, Stauffenbergerstr. 107, 72074 Tuebingen, Germany // // Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]// // KDE 2.2.1: It is real! // -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
