[foundation-board] MOTION: Trademarks for the OKF

[Ben Laurie]

On 5 April 2013 19:38, Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org> wrote:
> Would a revised motion without the Open Definition mark be preferable?

I would have no problem with the remaining proposed marks.

>
> 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 w e
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>