[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of Sen. Hollings' revised SSSCA, now called the CBDTPA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of Sen. Hollings' revised SSSCA, now called the CBDTPA
- From: Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:03:45 -0500
- In-reply-to: <3C9A3688.3843.75CC31@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
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