Re: The safest pair of hands ...

As they say, the only person who can safely be appointed to a position
of power is the one who doesn't want that honour.

Richard Stallman isn't interested in the label "Open Software" in the
slightest (as he has made very clear), so the FSF would make a good,
neutral custodian for the trademark on behalf of all those wishing to
use it. There is no way it would be abused to feather the FSF's own
nest, a definite danger elsewhere.

SPI, OSI (not a good choice of name!) and any number of other OSS
organizations can perform their roles perfectly adequately without
holding the trademark themselves. In fact, it would be a bad idea if
one of them were to hold it in an exclusive manner, since this would
then make other similar organizations operate in some sense as second
class citizens, ie. in a subsidiary capacity. That would not be
even-handed, and it's easy to see much bad feeling developing from
such a skewed setup --- we see the start of that already.

In contrast, in the FSF it would in effect lie in a sort of
undisturbed "glass case", a place of esteem for the latest emblem of
the community. I think this would work well.

Rich Artym
rich(at)galacta(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk

On Thu, Nov 26, 1998 at 12:56:59 +0000, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
> As they say, the only person who can safely be appointed to a position of
> power is the one who doesn't want that honour.

I understand this sentiment, but I don't agree with it in this case. As the
events of this year have shown, "Open Source" works well as a marketing tool
for free software, and does not, when properly managed (including, when
needed, defended) weaken the politics of free software.

(Also, to some extent, the fact that SPI has chosen to consult the free
software community in the trademark issue, is an argument for it not being
in the "game" for power's sake).

> Richard Stallman isn't interested in the label "Open Software" in the
> slightest (as he has made very clear), so the FSF would make a good,
> neutral custodian for the trademark on behalf of all those wishing to use
> it.

There's more to the trademark than use: there is also the issue of defending
the trademark. Would the FSF be willing to sue (and thus potentially commit
a lot of money) to defend a trademark it isn't interested in?
Also, when Open Source is held by the FSF, how would the definition of the
term be managed (it is to some degree desirable to be able to modify the
definition in the future, to clarify aspects unaddressed so far, and follow
the collective opinion of the free software community)?

Ray
--
Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.