[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

[paula le dieu]

Seems to be the day for catching up on OKF Board business.

I am with Ben. We need to be very thoughtful about why and how we are going
to police a trademark on "Open Definition". While I understand the impulse
(a deterrent and recourse to restrict future use of the term that we may
find inappropriate) I am not clear on why. Are we asserting that there is
only one definition of Open and therefore application of the term Open
Definition to any other text is inappropriate or must be endorsed by us? It
sounds like a big job to both defend the trademark (a necessary requirement
to maintain the trademark) and/or to endorse use.

Regards
Paula


On 3 April 2013 16:47, Becky Hogge <becky.hogge at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/foundation-board/attachments/20130403/80451366/attachment.html>