[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

[Becky Hogge]

On 3 April 2013 15:08, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
> 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?

Isn't that what the open definition already does?