Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of Sen. Hollings' revised SSSCA, now called theCBDTPA

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Does OSI want to fight the government when the government wants to subvert 
OSI?
Now has Hollings done a trademark infringment? Maybe OSI should send him a 
letter congradulating him on his stance and sending him a copy of the 
licensing agreement, as well as sending it to the WP, NYT and anyother 
place they can.

I don't know about anyone else but when I hear JackBoots or any of the 
industry consortium talk about now they are an open standard bacause 
anyone can pay the licensing fee to join it I wanna puke. If it isn't 
freely available and FREE it isn't an open standard. 




Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
03/22/02 10:03 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of Sen. Hollings' revised SSSCA, now called the 
CBDTPA



On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 10:37  PM, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:

>  WRT to doing it open source. That probably sums up what Hollings 
> wants. I
> think Hollings is up against another estoppel argument. Open source is 
> well
> established. If he proposes it as open source, then he must accept what 
> open
> source is....but I suspect this is yet  another case of pollution. 
> That's a
> rather incidious tactic pioneered in the 80s by a number of 
> organizations. Get
> into the working of something. Pollute it and then get it eliminated 
> because
> it's screwed up (e.g, James Watt and the EPA, Microsoft and Java)
>
Isn't "open source" trademarked by the OSI? Any "open source" 
implementation would have to be approved by the Open Source Initiative.

Jeremy