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

Nils Lohner writes:
> [- incorporated comments from Joey
> - slight reogranization for better continuity in preamble
>
> This is the proposal to establish a commttee in SPI to handle all things
> related to teh OS mark. This charter defines the powers and scope of the
> committee, and the procedures by which it operates will be defined by the
> committee itself and approved by the board of directors (see recent
> resolutions and bylaws for details if interested). Please comment if you
> think that there are important things that need to be mentioned, otherwise,
> please feel free to comment to the committee when the proposal is approved
> and looking for input from teh community.

The DRAFT Resolution makes no mention of the Open Source Initiative.
I see this as a problem, given that I am a member of the board of OSI.

Our board has come to the conclusion that there *is* no Open Source
mark, so I am wondering exactly what this committee intends to
manage. The DRAFT Resolution is extremely vague on this point. Does
SPI intend to resume pursuit of an Open Source certification mark? If
so, that's certainly one possible goal, but the DRAFT Resolution does
not say so.

> The committee is hereby granted the power to develop communications and
> marketing initiatives to raise industry and community awareness for open
> software.

What is OSI, then? Chopped liver?

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!

On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 10:49:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The DRAFT Resolution makes no mention of the Open Source Initiative.
> I see this as a problem, given that I am a member of the board of OSI.
SPI and OSI are seperate entities.. there is no reason for an SPI
resolution to make mention of OSI unless there was going to be some sort of
cooperative or other "business" with OSI.

> Our board has come to the conclusion that there *is* no Open Source
> mark, so I am wondering exactly what this committee intends to
> manage. The DRAFT Resolution is extremely vague on this point. Does
> SPI intend to resume pursuit of an Open Source certification mark? If
> so, that's certainly one possible goal, but the DRAFT Resolution does
> not say so.

Setting the goals is one of the first tasks of the Committee... The
committee is basicly going to get the opinion of the Free Software/Open
Source community on just where the committee needs to be focusing it's
attention.

> What is OSI, then? Chopped liver?

Let's face it. OSI and SPI have not had the most cordial of relationships.
Furthermore, some of the board members and thier peers feel that OSI have
not acted appropriate (too closed) and/or made bad decisions (Apple, etc.).
I *do not* want this thread to turn into a bashing flamefest or any such.

I REPEAT - I do not want this to turn into a battle of any sort. (And this
goes for my fellow board memebers and the other people that follow
-general). If you really want to flame this out, tell me and I'll create a
special list just for you.

Now, there are members of OSI's board that hold the respect of SPI Board
members as individuals (Tim Sailor and Ian Murdock come to mind for me) so
there is always room for dialog. This resolution, however, doesn't need to
take notice of OSI unless the Board want's to direct the committee to work
with (or against or specificly ignore or any other "business") OSI.

My $.02,
Darren

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

Darren O. Benham writes:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 10:49:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > The DRAFT Resolution makes no mention of the Open Source Initiative.
> > I see this as a problem, given that I am a member of the board of OSI.

> SPI and OSI are seperate entities.. there is no reason for an SPI
> resolution to make mention of OSI unless there was going to be some sort of
> cooperative or other "business" with OSI.

Then I ask that SPI transfer the domain names open-?source.{org,net}
to OSI. If not, then why not? There is no Open Source trademark, and
SPI has no particular mandate from the 12/98 consultation to manage
Open Source. Historically, OSI has maintained the domain, and done so
in a responsible manner (including changing the NS records on the
domain on an emergency basis to maintain service, which action SPI
reversed).

> Now, there are members of OSI's board that hold the respect of SPI Board
> members as individuals (Tim Sailor and Ian Murdock come to mind for me) so

Tim Sailer has not been on the board since 13 Mar 99.

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!

On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:07:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Then I ask that SPI transfer the domain names open-?source.{org,net}
> to OSI. If not, then why not? There is no Open Source trademark, and
> SPI has no particular mandate from the 12/98 consultation to manage
> Open Source. Historically, OSI has maintained the domain, and done so
> in a responsible manner (including changing the NS records on the
> domain on an emergency basis to maintain service, which action SPI
> reversed).
The dispensation of the domain name is another action for the committee to
consider... Otherwise, we've been talking with Ian Murdock. Who's the
official OSI contact for this matter? You, him or some other person?

> Tim Sailer has not been on the board since 13 Mar 99.
So? He still has my respect.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

Darren O. Benham writes:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:07:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Then I ask that SPI transfer the domain names open-?source.{org,net}
> > to OSI. If not, then why not? There is no Open Source trademark, and
> > SPI has no particular mandate from the 12/98 consultation to manage
> > Open Source. Historically, OSI has maintained the domain, and done so
> > in a responsible manner (including changing the NS records on the
> > domain on an emergency basis to maintain service, which action SPI
> > reversed).
> The dispensation of the domain name is another action for the committee to
> consider... Otherwise, we've been talking with Ian Murdock. Who's the
> official OSI contact for this matter? You, him or some other person?

Ian has been handling it, but I had some questions of my own. To wit:
Why has the domain name not already been transferred? What is the
problem here, and why does SPI feel a unique responsibility for
solving that problem? Perhaps a problem exists, but it's *our*
responsibility for fixing it, in which case why is SPI retaining
control?

> > Tim Sailer has not been on the board since 13 Mar 99.
> So? He still has my respect.

So ... he's not on the board anymore. What other misconceptions may
yet lurk?

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Darren O. Benham writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:07:27AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > Then I ask that SPI transfer the domain names open-?source.{org,net}
> > > to OSI. If not, then why not? There is no Open Source trademark, and
> > > SPI has no particular mandate from the 12/98 consultation to manage
> > > Open Source. Historically, OSI has maintained the domain, and done so
> > > in a responsible manner (including changing the NS records on the
> > > domain on an emergency basis to maintain service, which action SPI
> > > reversed).
> > The dispensation of the domain name is another action for the committee to
> > consider... Otherwise, we've been talking with Ian Murdock. Who's the
> > official OSI contact for this matter? You, him or some other person?
>
> Ian has been handling it, but I had some questions of my own. To wit:
> Why has the domain name not already been transferred? What is the
> problem here, and why does SPI feel a unique responsibility for
> solving that problem? Perhaps a problem exists, but it's *our*
> responsibility for fixing it, in which case why is SPI retaining
> control?
>
For what it's worth, as a potential member of SPI, I would prefer
the domain name held, at least until the membership of SPI has grown and a
general vote could be held.

Lynn

On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 10:31:34AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Why has the domain name not already been transferred? What is the
One could also ask, "Why should it be?" The domain started out as SPI's
and there never was an agreement between SPI and OSI to transfer the
domain.

> problem here, and why does SPI feel a unique responsibility for
> solving that problem? Perhaps a problem exists, but it's *our*
> responsibility for fixing it, in which case why is SPI retaining
> control?
There is no problems except "Should it be transfered". Some people on
SPI's board question if that would be in the best interest of the Open
Software community.

> > > Tim Sailer has not been on the board since 13 Mar 99.
> > So? He still has my respect.
>
> So ... he's not on the board anymore. What other misconceptions may
> yet lurk?
There shouldn't be any but until recently (Last time I tried was a few
months ago) there was no way to find out just who is "OSI"

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 10:31:34AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Ian has been handling it, but I had some questions of my own. To wit:
> Why has the domain name not already been transferred? What is the
> problem here, and why does SPI feel a unique responsibility for
> solving that problem? Perhaps a problem exists, but it's *our*
> responsibility for fixing it, in which case why is SPI retaining
> control?

Well, frankly Russell I'm not sure if everybody has the same view of
the situation as you do. As confusing and frustrating as this whole
situation has been I find it hard to even have a sensible conversation
about it. Let me see if I can make any sense.

The Open Source trademark was originally registered by Bruce Perens
for the SPI corporation and the opensource.org domain was likewise
reserved by SPI. SPI then named Eric as the manager for the project.
After that a whole series of curious events occured that included the
attrition of 3/4 of the SPI board to the new formed OSI project. In
this whole muddle, however, no one took the time to cross t's and dot
i's in any real organized way. As a result, the only tangible effect
of the SPI/OSI meltdown was to move some people off one board and onto
another. So, I guess you and the other members of OSI may be a bit
suprised that SPI brushed itself off and reconstituted itself out of
the ranks of its membership, but I don't see why you should be.

Our members wrote the definintion of Free Software that OSI slapped
its name on. We take that as some signal that our opinion is valuable
even though OSI tried to take away our voice in the matter. We have
always possessed the means to change this situation and we have, at
length, decided to do so. It may upset you that we now have our own
opinions and the machinery to voice them, but it is simply a fact of
life. I don't think anyone here wants to prevent you from being
involved in the Open Source effort, so don't be upset if we also want
to get a little more involved. The fact that we posses something that
you want is an issue that ultimatly can only be blamed on the way that
your fellow board members comported themselves with the SPI community.

Sorry,
E

--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.

Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 10:31:34AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Ian has been handling it, but I had some questions of my own. To wit:
> > Why has the domain name not already been transferred?

> The fact that we possess something that you want is an issue that
> ultimately can only be blamed on the way that your fellow board
> members comported themselves with the SPI community.

Please consider that we also have had a serious board turn-over since
then. Of that initial board to which you refer, only one (1) person
is still a member (Ian) -- and he's the person whom you supposedly
respect. We've added Chip, Brian, Peter, and myself, and in the
meantime, SPI has sat on its duff and done nothing to promote Open
Source while we've done all the work. We're the ones who figured out
that "Open Source" isn't protectable. We're the ones who've certified
licenses. We're the ones who have been telling people about the
benefits of Open Source certification.

At this point, SPI looks to me like the usurper of our good name and
work. I don't see how your proposed palace coup is fair to those of
us who are not responsible for this debacle. But as you say, what you
see depends on where you sit. If someone were to ask me what the
proper course of action is, given your and my attitude (not that our
respective boards necessarily agree with us), I'd say that it should
go to an independent arbitrator. The alternative would seem to be
more of the same bickering and strife.

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> then. Of that initial board to which you refer, only one (1) person
> is still a member (Ian) -- and he's the person whom you supposedly
www.opensource.org/board.html still lists ESR as a board member. Is
he not one any longer?

> respect. We've added Chip, Brian, Peter, and myself, and in the
> meantime, SPI has sat on its duff and done nothing to promote Open
> Source while we've done all the work.

Actually, they've devised a nice, democratic system of membership.
Speaking of which, when will we get to start applying for membership?

> We're the ones who figured out
> that "Open Source" isn't protectable.
You're the ones who decided "Open Source" isn't protectable. Whether
or not it is is another matter. And one that, I hope, would be part of
the decision as to whether to totally hand over control of the
opensource.org domain.

> We're the ones who've certified
> licenses. We're the ones who have been telling people about the
> benefits of Open Source certification.
>
> At this point, SPI looks to me like the usurper of our good name and
> work. I don't see how your proposed palace coup is fair to those of
> us who are not responsible for this debacle.
Seems to me the "coup" is actually a long-standing disagreement.

Lynn

Hi.

As a bit of an outsider (well, not _too_ far outside) looking into
this process, it's clear to me that OSI and SPI have had some fights,
and so everyone is pissed off and accusatory, which makes any sort of
sane monitoring of what's going on a little tricky. You have to cut
through a lot of noise of people blaming each other for debacles,
crises, boondoggles, and other highly political and pointless turns of
phrase.

I was wondering if everyone could chill out and forgive the past for
long enough to give precise (short; please please short) answers to
some questions:

(1) What kind of a legal entity / organization is OSI? It says on the
website that it is a nonprofit seeking 501(c)3 in California. What
does this mean, particularly outside Cali? How is it legally or
financially related to SPI?

(2) Has anyone outside OSI (who, forgive the implication, have a
vested intrest) confirmed that the "Open Source" trademark is non
enforceable?

(3) Has the Open Source trademark, in its legally registered form
(enforceable or not) lapsed, as in timed out, as in
no-longer-exists? Or does anyone have a piece of paper somewhere
which says "Bobo owns the trademark 'Open Source'". If so, who is
Bobo? And what is the juristiction of the trademark?

(4) whois says Darren and Martin are contacts for the domain
opensource.(org|net), whereas Bruce and Tim are contacts for
open-source.(org|net). Who is on which board, and who is trying to
hold/transfer which domain(s)? It sounds like there's some
disagreement on this too. Who here actually feels like it's
"their" domain and they should be the contacts? Everyone? Why do
they feel this way? Do they have any legal grounds for this
feeling? This probably depends a little on #1, doesn't it? Does
anyone here know enough Domain Name Law" to know which of the 2
organizations can hold claim to which names? (remember, short
answers)

(5) OSI was, by SPI's (self-interested) telling, established to
monitor the Open Source trademark, which SPI owns. OSI claims
(truthfully or not) that this trademark is defunct, and is now
certifying software using the "OSI Certified Open Source"
certification mark. At this point, is OSI effectively saying that
they (the board members) do not want to have anything to do with
the SPI board members anymore? If so, why not just say so? What is
tying the two groups together if they disagree, goodwill? In other
words, how is any of this different from me going out and making a
Funky Software Initiative, and beginning to certify things
Certifiably Funky Open Source? Certainly SPI would not have
anything to do with that -- why is OSI any different anymore? Is
is it just the domain name?

(6) out of curiosity: does SPI have any plans on forking another group
to certify things, assuming that OSI's certifications are not
agreeable? Or is OSI doing right by SPI these days? If not, is
there any legal or financial recourse?

Sorry, I know these are probably heated questions for some, but
untangling politics is excruciatingly slow going, and I'm just trying
to work out what's happening. Please don't take this as fuel for
flames. I just want to get a picture of the current situation as each
group sees it.

-graydon

Lynn Winebarger writes:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > We're the ones who figured out
> > that "Open Source" isn't protectable.
> You're the ones who decided "Open Source" isn't protectable. Whether
> or not it is is another matter.

I don't mean to threaten you (because after all, I don't think "Open
Source" is a trademark), but if push came to shove, who would a judge
say owns "Open Source"? The Open Source Initiative, which has been
certifying licenses as Open Source, or Software in the Public
Interest? Remember, your registration application expired without
action on your part. Now you're talking about re-applying for a
trademark which as far as everyone can tell belongs to someone else.
This is not rational behavior.

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:22:06PM -0500, graydon(at)pobox(dot)com wrote:
> (1) What kind of a legal entity / organization is OSI? It says on the
> website that it is a nonprofit seeking 501(c)3 in California. What
> does this mean, particularly outside Cali? How is it legally or
> financially related to SPI?
OSI, itself, is not related to SPI. The process they are going through,
however, is something that SPI has completed. Being a 501(c)3, basicly,
means that dontations to the organization are tax deductable. There are a
bunch of other things but that's the major one as the organization relates
to the outside world.

> (3) Has the Open Source trademark, in its legally registered form
> (enforceable or not) lapsed, as in timed out, as in
> no-longer-exists? Or does anyone have a piece of paper somewhere
> which says "Bobo owns the trademark 'Open Source'". If so, who is
> Bobo? And what is the juristiction of the trademark?
Yes, it has formally lapsed and does not exist in any registered form.

> (4) whois says Darren and Martin are contacts for the domain
> opensource.(org|net), whereas Bruce and Tim are contacts for
> open-source.(org|net). Who is on which board, and who is trying to
> hold/transfer which domain(s)? It sounds like there's some
> disagreement on this too. Who here actually feels like it's
> "their" domain and they should be the contacts? Everyone? Why do
> they feel this way? Do they have any legal grounds for this
> feeling? This probably depends a little on #1, doesn't it? Does
> anyone here know enough Domain Name Law" to know which of the 2
> organizations can hold claim to which names? (remember, short
> answers)
This starts with a very straight forward answer from InterNic.. the
"Registrant" of any domain is the owner of that domain. It's the
registrant of said domains that get to say who each contact is. The fact
that Darren and Martin are contacts for one and Bruce and Tim are contacts
for the other are at the whim of the registrant.

> (5) OSI was, by SPI's (self-interested) telling, established to
> monitor the Open Source trademark, which SPI owns. OSI claims
> (truthfully or not) that this trademark is defunct, and is now
> certifying software using the "OSI Certified Open Source"
> certification mark. At this point, is OSI effectively saying that
> they (the board members) do not want to have anything to do with
> the SPI board members anymore? If so, why not just say so? What is
> tying the two groups together if they disagree, goodwill? In other
> words, how is any of this different from me going out and making a
> Funky Software Initiative, and beginning to certify things
> Certifiably Funky Open Source? Certainly SPI would not have
> anything to do with that -- why is OSI any different anymore? Is
> is it just the domain name?
The only official connection between OSI and SPI is the opensource.org
domain. They've been using the domain name ever since they started
monitoring the open source trademark. Now they have requested SPI to
transfer legal ownership (registration) of that domain name.

> (6) out of curiosity: does SPI have any plans on forking another group
> to certify things, assuming that OSI's certifications are not
> agreeable? Or is OSI doing right by SPI these days? If not, is
> there any legal or financial recourse?
No formal statement has been issued but there are people in SPI who feel
less than satisfied with how OSI has been handling several recent licence
issues. The committee proposal that sparked Russ's outrage is being formed
to explore such issues as the Open Source Mark, the final end of the
opensource.org domain and such issues. Forking another group is not
possible as SPI is not OSI.. creating another group would, I suppose, be an
alternative but it's hard to see that happening (to me). We'll have to see
what the Committee comes up with.
>
> to work out what's happening. Please don't take this as fuel for
> flames. I just want to get a picture of the current situation as each
I agree.. this is not meant to be any sort of fuel for flames and I won't
participate if anyone reading this trys to add flame to the flammibles
here...

This is also not an Board Approved response. This are answers from my
knowledge and opinion... opinion needing hightlighting..

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 08:54:56PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Please consider that we also have had a serious board turn-over since
> then. Of that initial board to which you refer, only one (1) person
> is still a member (Ian) -- and he's the person whom you supposedly
> respect. We've added Chip, Brian, Peter, and myself, and in the
> meantime, SPI has sat on its duff and done nothing to promote Open
> Source while we've done all the work. We're the ones who figured out
> that "Open Source" isn't protectable. We're the ones who've certified
> licenses. We're the ones who have been telling people about the
> benefits of Open Source certification.

Well, I would have to get legal council involved to make any kind of
definative statement but I'm dubious of what exactly you have "figured
out". 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. Especially when you consider that even "Linux" is trademarked
with its completely vauge enforcement policy. The simple fact that
companies are committing millions of dollars of intellectual property
to the Open Source brand is probably a good indicator that they would
like the term to have an enforcable and consistent meaning.

In that sense, OSI has probably single handedly struck the most
damaging blow possible to the effort of making the Open Source term a
meaningful tool for the community. As to our duff, it has been busily
fabricating a control structure geared towards a membership oriented
organization. When it hasn't been doing that, it has been hosting
projects and contructing the second largest Linux distribution in the
world. Unfortunalty, this has left us precious little time to assist
in the effort of convincing Richard Stallman that he has got it all
wrong on "license-discuss".

> At this point, SPI looks to me like the usurper of our good name and
> work. I don't see how your proposed palace coup is fair to those of
> us who are not responsible for this debacle. But as you say, what you
> see depends on where you sit. If someone were to ask me what the
> proper course of action is, given your and my attitude (not that our
> respective boards necessarily agree with us), I'd say that it should
> go to an independent arbitrator. The alternative would seem to be
> more of the same bickering and strife.

The usurper of the usurped cries "usurper!", this is superb.

Perhaps you should have asked a few questions about the precise
relationship between the non-existent OSI corporation and SPI when you
hopped on board this moving train. But I do honestly empathize with
you in this most dubious and embarrasing of situations. All of your
names are well known and there is respect for your reputations in
other matters if not in this particular one. I know that this new
effort will be an open one and all of you will need to be consulted
on how we can make it productive.

--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:44:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I don't mean to threaten you (because after all, I don't think "Open
> Source" is a trademark), but if push came to shove, who would a judge
> say owns "Open Source"? The Open Source Initiative, which has been
> certifying licenses as Open Source, or Software in the Public
> Interest? Remember, your registration application expired without
> action on your part. Now you're talking about re-applying for a
> trademark which as far as everyone can tell belongs to someone else.
> This is not rational behavior.

Well, lets put it this way Russell. The Open Source definition is
essentially a word for word copy of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. Furthermore, the "mark" is essentially short hand way of
referring to that definition. If that isn't enough for you, the fact
that the OSI group started out as a SPI committee and the fact that
all the paperwork for the domain and the mark were filed by SPI
representatives also paints a reasonably compelling case.

Now, its true that with enough money and lawyers you can get a court
to do some pretty weird things, but I wouldn't want to be footing the
bill for this case out of _my_ pocket.

Then again, maybe this will give Eric something to do with the big
steaming vat of VA IPO stock he is getting for being their
"conscience". That, especially with the valuation boost VA will get
from OEMing Debian, would be an irony of genuinely comic proportion.

E

ps. All this jabber is me, not SPI board, talking

pps. Please don't get mad, I'm not trying to flame, I promise.

--
Ean Schuessler Director of Strategic Weapons Systems
Novare International Inc. A Devices that Kill People company
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 20:54:56 -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> We're the ones who've certified licenses.

For the purpose of certification, the DFSG and the OSD are interchangeable.
The Debian project (SPI's biggest project) has been certifying licenses
as it has aways been, using the time-honoured mechanism of open discussion
on debian-legal(at)lists(dot)debian(dot)org, so this is mostly [expletive deleted].

Ray
--
POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan

Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> In that sense, OSI has probably single handedly struck the most
> damaging blow possible to the effort of making the Open Source term a
> meaningful tool for the community. As to our duff, it has been busily
> fabricating a control structure geared towards a membership oriented
> organization.

In other words, you've created a bureaucracy. Not only that, but
you're proud of it. That's pretty sad (definitely speaking as an
individual here).

> When it hasn't been doing that, it has been hosting
> projects and contructing the second largest Linux distribution in the
> world.

Debian created SPI, not vice-versa.

--
-russ nelson <sig(at)russnelson(dot)com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Ean R . Schuessler writes:
> > In that sense, OSI has probably single handedly struck the most
> > damaging blow possible to the effort of making the Open Source term a
> > meaningful tool for the community. As to our duff, it has been busily
> > fabricating a control structure geared towards a membership oriented
> > organization.
>
> In other words, you've created a bureaucracy. Not only that, but
> you're proud of it. That's pretty sad (definitely speaking as an
> individual here).

It's this kind of statement that really makes me wary of OSI. From all
outward appearances, OSI is an autocracy. SPI, on the other hand, is on
the path (once the membership rolls start being filled) to providing a
democratic form of governing its assets (e.g. deciding how to dispense
funding for free software development). That's not sad, it's great. That
some level of structure is needed to coordinate the democratic process
doesn't make it worse than the more efficient model of dictums from
on-high.
In case anyone is wondering, I'm not even a member of SPI, much less a
representative of it. So don't take these remarks as coming from SPI.
They're not.

Lynn

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:01:26PM -0600, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> The Open Source trademark was originally registered by Bruce Perens
> for the SPI corporation and the opensource.org domain was likewise
> reserved by SPI. SPI then named Eric as the manager for the project.
> After that a whole series of curious events occured that included the
> attrition of 3/4 of the SPI board to the new formed OSI project. In
> this whole muddle, however, no one took the time to cross t's and dot
> i's in any real organized way. As a result, the only tangible effect
> of the SPI/OSI meltdown was to move some people off one board and onto
> another. So, I guess you and the other members of OSI may be a bit
> suprised that SPI brushed itself off and reconstituted itself out of
> the ranks of its membership, but I don't see why you should be.

The way I'd characterize the events you just described is:

The several (most) members of the SPI board quit and formed the OSI.
However, they didn't do much about the Open Source mark till after
this event (and even then their primary actions were upset messages and
refusal to complete the registration which was in process). However,
the OSI has been very good about stating what it wants to do, while the
SPI is considerably less outspoken.

[Or, more simply, OSI was created in a temper tantrum. But that's my
personal opinion and might be offensive.]

I *like* Russell's concept of OSI and SPI working together on this, and
hope that this can happen.

--
Raul is not a member of the board of either OSI or SPI, but is a Debian
developer and so is affiliated with SPI.