As mentioned elsewhere, the original debates around "open source", as both a term and movement, centered around "free" vs. "open", or the value, benefits, ethics, etc. of copyleft/reciprocal licenses vs. permissive…
> "Definitions don't belong to committees" > "[...]irony in the OSI talking about open source like they own it[...]" The definition (and it's authority/legitimacy) belongs to (i.e. owned by) a community of contributors,…
The term "open source" can not be trademarked (just like Kilogram can not); the mark is too "descriptive." The OSI does have trademarks for "OSI Approved Open Source License", as well of course for its own branding,…
As mentioned elsewhere, the original debates around "open source", as both a term and movement, centered around "free" vs. "open", or the value, benefits, ethics, etc. of copyleft/reciprocal licenses vs. permissive…
> "Definitions don't belong to committees" > "[...]irony in the OSI talking about open source like they own it[...]" The definition (and it's authority/legitimacy) belongs to (i.e. owned by) a community of contributors,…
The term "open source" can not be trademarked (just like Kilogram can not); the mark is too "descriptive." The OSI does have trademarks for "OSI Approved Open Source License", as well of course for its own branding,…