[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

Fri Apr 5 18:38:02 UTC 2013

Would a revised motion without the Open Definition mark be preferable?

Best regards,

Laura

On 3 April 2013 17:16, paula le dieu <paula at ledieu.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 

Dr Laura James

Co-Director
Open Knowledge Foundation
http://okfn.org
*Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/foundation-board/attachments/20130405/81ddda12/attachment.html>