[okfn-discuss] Open Service Definition (revisited)

[Rufus Pollock]

Julian Priest wrote:
> 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'

Yes I'd noticed this on a machine recently and wondered about it ...

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

Very interesting though you might want to drop that trailing o on 
Mozillao :)

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

> This discussion maybe has some relevance for Open Services.

It certainly does. Thanks for bringing it up.

> 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.

Though only so much. Look how effectively supermarkets have been able to 
sell their lower-priced substitutes for big-brand products ...

> 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?

As I've earlier stated in relation to the 'identity' issue (i.e. the 
problem of becoming identified with a url controlled by the service 
provider a la gmail/myspace ...) I think this *is* a problem but *not* a 
problem an open service definition should address. In my view this is up 
to the user not the service, and if the service manages to build a big 
brand for itself while remaining open well bully for the 
service-provider :) -- just as I don't mind Firefox getting all 
protective about their 'brand' as long as the code stays open).

~rufus