Re: For Monday


Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 



On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
Jeremiah, Joseph, I'm just catching up on this thread, thanks for the responses.

Jeremiah, I read the materials at the link you provided re the FSF and SFC discussion with Canonical, which seemed to be about a different issue, to my read, but don't have all the background.

You're right of course David. The issue there is really somewhat tangential to Trademark. 
 
 Can you clarify the connection between that recent FSF and SFC action relative to trademark?  

My take is that one of the tools that Canonical uses to deny other projects reuse of Ubuntu packages is trademark (among other things.) This use of trademark by Canonical was enough cause for concern that FSF and others discussed the issue with Canonical in an endeavor to ensure that the spirit of software freedom was being respected along with compliance to the GPL. 

In the case of Open Chain which a group of Linux Foundation members creating an ISO process, trademark is also a potential tool to limit the use of the deliverable from OC, namely certification "marks" and logos. I think that OC should work towards a liberal trademark policy so that a wide distribution of companies have access to OC's process. Or, better yet, refrain entirely from creating a special logo signifying "certification" according to OC. Many ISO standard certificate processes just have "ISO 0000 Certified" as a suitable mark to advertise certification and I think that is sufficient. 

Compliance with Free Software licenses shouldn't be complicated and definitely shouldn't come with an expensive consulting and certification processes. 

Cheers,

Jeremiah


PS:  The authors of the GPL have a lot to say about so-called intellectual property: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html  
 

Thanks,
Dave


 
On Jul 18, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


Also, here you can read about the Python Trademark dispute:
http://opensource.com/law/13/2/python-trademark-dispute

Meh. I prefer the recent discussion by FSF and the Free Software Conservancy: https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms

The approach to trademark described there is similar to the Free Software process itself, liberal and generous. If people say they're using Open Chain's process and they're able to achieve compliance then that is the right outcome. Its highly unlikely that anyone careful enough to follow the process would violate knowingly the Open Chain trademark. 



--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
M: +46 (0)73 093 0506

Join main@lists.openchainproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.