[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

Wed Apr 3 15:41:51 UTC 2013

On 3 April 2013 15:12, Becky Hogge <becky.hogge at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

No: http://opendefinition.org/licenses/.

One point I just made to Rufus and Laura was that it should also be
clear that these licences are 100% compatible with each other (Rufus
said they were, but that page doesn't say so).