[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

Wed Apr 3 14:08:56 UTC 2013

On 20 March 2013 10:31, Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 19 March 2013 22:07, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Speaking as someone who was on the receiving end of attempts to co-opt
>> "Open Source" I am not so keen on us holding a trademark on such an
>> open-ended term. Unless, that is, the purpose was to allow anyone to
>> use it for whatever they felt like.
>
>
> I think we are in different territory here. The Open Definition refers, not
> to a set of items such as software, but to a specific
> document/website/standard, which sets out the definition of what it means to
> be truly open.
>
> The reason to protect this is to ensure that the community has a single
> point of reference which is sound and proven.  As openwashing becomes more
> common, and the term "open" is attached to many products and services which
> are not freely usable, and other organisations start to offer their own
> ideas of what open means, the definition becomes increasingly important.  To
> further our goals, then, we need to reinforce the gold standard of openness
> and to ensure that newcomers to the open data and open knowledge space are
> not mislead by other "open" concepts
>
> Having the trademark would enable us to take action if others are marketing
> different open definitions, and therefore to reduce community confusion
> around the standard. "Open definition compliant" would mean something very
> specific, and could not be repurposed to other less- or non-open ends. The
> term "open definition compliant" sees quite a bit of use in the community,
> and we would not in any way restrict this or limit people referring to 'our'
> open definition, but we could be more certain that this phrase meant a
> certain thing and wasn't being misused.
>
> I should add that Francis as our legal council recommended that we register
> Open Definition; it is one of our best known and furthest disseminated
> outputs, and yet isn't always understood to have come from the OKF.

This is exactly the rhetoric that http://opensource.org/ used. Only
with rather less justification for co-opting the term.

Where you go next is you say "licence X is not compatible with our
definition, but licence Y is". And then a while later you find you
have blessed 500 incompatible "open" licences.

So, since the board seems bent on this course, can we at least avoid
the 500 licence thing, and define a small number (ideally one) licence
that is blessed?

>
> Best regards,
>
> Laura
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Laura James
>
> Co-Director
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://okfn.org
> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-board mailing list
> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/foundation-board
>