Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee (fwd)

From: Nils Lohner <lohner(at)ecf(dot)teradyne(dot)com>
To: Russell Nelson <nelson(at)crynwr(dot)com>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee (fwd)
Date: 1999-11-09 13:45:57
Message-ID: 199911091345.OAA03388@bernin.grnbl_domain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Sorry, forgot to keep the cc:


------- Forwarded Message

X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 04/14/1999
To: Russell Nelson <nelson(at)crynwr(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:06:00 EST."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:45:16 +0100
From: Nils Lohner <lohner(at)ecf(dot)teradyne(dot)com>

In message <14376(dot)6231(dot)699809(dot)730153(at)desk(dot)crynwr(dot)com>, Russell Nelson writes:
>Nils Lohner writes:
> > As far as I know there has been no talk of SPI reapplying for the mark- can
> > you please give me a reference for this statement?
>Your own draft keeps referring to it as a "mark". If you don't think
>it's a trademark or service mark or certification mark, then you
>shouldn't call it that.

Good point. I think it may be best to refer to it as the 'Open Source
Development process' or something like that, since that's what we're trying
to protect. I'll reread the resolution with this in mind, and think I'll
make that change. The mark was the object that stood for that process,
that's why I used that term I believe.

Do you have any other questions or suggestions for this resolution?

>Ean S. just said "If Progressive Networks can trademark the word
>"Real" for streaming audio software (which has about 4000 marks
>similar to it) I frankly can't see what would stop someone from
>trademarking Open Source." In other words, he sees no obstacle to SPI
>re-registering for the domain name.
The domain name, or the mark? And, seeing no obstacle is different from
actively re-registering. One is an observation, the other an action.

> > As for reapplying, isn't OSI applying for the mark at present in
> > some form or another (OSI certified OS or something similar)?
>You don't "apply" for a mark. You just start using it.
In that case I may be missing something... just using a mark can work like
this, but its just not a registered mark in that case (until filed with
USPTO)? Or are there other differences as well? I'm no expert on
trademarks etc. so if you could clarify this I'd be grateful.

>If you don't intend to get into an argument, then don't *present*
Sorry... I attempted to present facts... I guess I did stray a little in
the last paragraph :)


------- End of Forwarded Message

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Russell Nelson 1999-11-09 14:51:08 Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee
Previous Message Russell Nelson 1999-11-09 13:06:00 Re: [DRAFT 3]: Charter for the Open Source Committee