[okfn-discuss] Open Service Definition (revisited)

[Julian Priest]

Rufus Pollock wrote:

> Well I think again this goes back to the debian analogy. If you provide 
> a system that has an essential non-open component (whether in the form 
> of code or data) then that system is *not* open. If the item is an 
> optional add-on then I think you are ok. So, for example, firefox is 
> definitely open source even though the flash plugin may be proprietary 
> (though if the flash plugin became absolutely essential to using firefox 
> this might start to be debatable).

:) bit of a tangent but last week installing Debian I found..

Yes - Firefox is definitely open source, but Firefox's trademarked logo
conflicts with the Debian Free Software Guidelines so Debian won't ship
it any longer!

They instead ship the Firefox code base with an open logo under the name
'Ice Weasel'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conflict_between_Debian_and_Mozillao#Iceweasel

This discussion maybe has some relevance for Open Services.

In popular web services the name, domain name and logo become publicly
recognised as people use the service and recommend it to others. This
process self reinforces as participation increases -  public awareness 
of 'the brand' increases until it has common currency.

In a sense use value ends up accruing in the public recognition of the 
name and the brand.

In proprietary services this recognition is a large part of what is 
packaged up for sale or investment often for millions of dollars at IPO 
time.

In the Firefox case the Mozilla Corporation say they are protecting the 
brand against dilution or appropriation by trademarking it- maintaining 
public faith in F/OSS.

How should these branding issues be handled in Open Services?

cheers

/julian