[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: "Stephen L. Johnson" <sjohnson(at)monsters.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:53:49 -0600
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:26:09 PST." <4.3.2.7.2.20020322102219.00b20108@earthlink.net>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> At 01:03 PM 3/22/2002 -0500, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
>
>
>
> >Isn't "open source" trademarked by the OSI? Any "open source"
> >implementation would have to be approved by the Open Source Initiative.
>
>
> It appears to be a dead mark, but there are about ten live marks which
> include "open source." Perhaps the most interesting is the one owned by VA
> Software, formerly VA Linux, by virtue of acquiring Andover.net, which,
> under the aegis of Open Source Development Network (r), has a little
> something to do with /. and other equally obscure sites.
SlashDot obscure? That's almost an oxymoron. :)
"Open Source" and open source are two different things. "Open Source" an
umbrella description of numerous Software Licenses that meet OSI's standards.
The "Open Source" licenses are designed, in essence, to promote access to a
programs source code. The (in)famous GNU Progarm Licence (GPL) is one of these
licenses along with the Mozilla Program License (MPL), the Perl Artistic
License and other.
An OSI doesn't approve "open source" implementations. They only say whether
the licenses would meet the standards of "Open Source" or not. I could create
a program and openly release the code to anyone except for James Tyre (he
can't use it ;) My souce is open, but my license wouldn't be "Open Source".
Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>