[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

Wed Apr 3 15:47:19 UTC 2013

Interestingly, this page uses the term "Open Knowledge Definition" not
 "Open Definition", the proposed trademark phrase.

On 3 April 2013 16:41, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
> 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).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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