toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Let's consider two approaches:
It appears that someone in this conversation has been tagged as advocating "some ISO regime that sues people over trademark". Let me correct that.I have in the past, on this list, advocated our cooperation with the community around ISO 19600 Compliance management systems -- Guidelines. So let me attempt to reduce the confusion created by the parody of the so-called "ISO regime".
OSADL License Compliance Audit (OSADL LCA)
Last year Siemens became "the first company authorized to label the audited product with the registered OSADL LCA hallmark, indicating to the purchasers of the product a high level of legal compliance when passing on the Open Source software contained in the product."
ISO 19600:2014 Compliance management systems -- Guidelines
"two important decisions have been made that determine the content and format of ISO/CD 18386 [ISO 19600]:
a) It will be a guidance document and not a specification (requirements standard);
b) It will describe a compliance management system.
The first decision implies that ISO/CD 18386 [ISO 19600] is not intended for certification, but provides organizations with ‘good practice’ that they can fully or partly implement."
On the page about the OSADL License Compliance Audit, we find a chart of fees for certification, and if I read that correctly (Oliver, please correct me if I'm wrong, as that article is about your team's audit) the OSADL certification is product-based. For any organization with many products, that seem a rather pricey treadmill to be on!
On the other hand, the ISO 19600 approach is a ‘good practice’ that organizations can fully or partly implement. Furthermore, the suggestion by David Marr (tweaked by me) that "Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level designations intended for use in relation to organizations, not products... The OpenChain logo ... must be clearly associated with the organization, not the product" seems to align with the ISO 19600 approach at the organization, rather than the product-by-product level.
Therefore I offer the following two hypotheses:
1. Jeremiah actually supports the ISO 19600 approach, and he abhors the OSADL approach;
2. Oliver led Siemens to the OSADL appraoch, and now regretting that decision, supports the ISO 19600 approach
So, I think we all like the ISO 19600 approach, but I trust I'll be corrected if I'm confused!
As to the matter of how difficult or easy it should be to use a trademark of a compliance certification process, that's orthoganal to the choice in overall approach discussed above. But I think we're all aware that license proliferation has made compliance a headache. Any inter-organizational license compliance managment system will therefore be very challenging. But it seems to me the organization-based ISO approach is a lot more practical and sustainable than the product-based OSADL approach.
FWIW, In my own free/libre/open work of the past decade and a half, for the above reasons I've generally tended towards "unified" licenses for whole applications, and "permissive" licenses for generic components and reference implementations. But I might be using an "elastic" license for the first time in a project I currently coordinate.
Source: This spectrum is described on pg 89 in my 2011 article here: http://www.irwinlaw.com/sites/default/files/attached/KP21%2004%20Potvin.pdf
Earlier Thread Summary:
[Jeremiah] "So companies going through certification can't use the logo or trademark? That seems a bit restrictive, especially during launch of the overall certification process when you really want to build brand awareness. Perhaps you have the Open Chain logo and you have a "Certified" logo for completing the ISO certification process. ... What sort of sanctions do you propose might happen should one claim their "product" as "certified"? You'd have to have some kind of meaningful leverage."
[Joseph] "Of course it's a bit restrictive. Isn't that the point of a certification process and certification mark? The sanctions, if necessary, would be most directly handled under normal trademark law.
[Jeremiah] "No. It should be about certifying a process that should be widely adopted with the fewest restrictions possible. ... I think this is completely the wrong approach. The whole point of Free Software is real freedom from this sort of legalistic nonsense. The focus of Open Chain should be in adopting the best practices that exist in the community, not trying to set up some ISO regime that sues people over trademark. Seriously"
[Joseph] Please see the OSI's Trademark Usage Guidelines ... You might also find the OSI-vs-OSHWA tussel about logos interesting
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Fendt, Oliver <oliver.fendt@...> wrote: