Recent searches
Search options
The Redis thing underscores a key point: _open source is not enough_. We need _community built software_ -- free and open source licenses are just one aspect of that.
If a company requires you to assign copyright (or equivalent re-licensing rights) in an asymmetrical way, they will inevitably eventually decide to take that option once they want to cash in on the goodwill you've built for them (let alone the code).
Indeed, there are four levels of open:
- Open source - under an OSI license
- Open community - may accept contributions
- Open governance - adds contributors to become maintainers
- Open brand - trademark is owned by a nonprofit foundation
I'm not really fond of that list.
Particularly:
* I don't think these are "levels", but rather some (but not all) aspects of openness.
* I don't see how "may accept contributions" relates to "open community" — I mean, they seem unrelated, not just a framing I would put differently
Also: "adds contributors to become maintainers" doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain what that means and how it relates to governance?
And: a nonprofit foundation could own a brand and use and license it in a non-open way (and indeed, this is common — see Mozilla and LibreOffice). Conversely, a for-profit corporation or government entity could own a brand but have some form of open licensing or governance.
"Apache" is another prominent example of non-open trademark control by a non-profit foundation.
How so? Or rather: what are you getting at, since I'm not following.
Reference: https://apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility
It's not *bad* — it's just not _open_.
https://apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
(See also the "iceweasel" thing.)
Iceweasel has zero to do with the ASF, so not a useful example.
"Open brands" is not the perfect word, I agree, since "open" really can't apply to trademarks (well, at least not for long!). But "Open" hints at brand governance for the community itself, not for a single for-profit corporation.
Is there a bigger argument, or just terminology here?
Trademarks can't really be open the same way code is, but they can be managed for the public good, not for profit.
> Trademarks can't really be open the same way code is, but they can be managed for the public good, not for profit.
That's exactly my point. I don't think that's related to openness _per se_.
Also, I think that it is possible for entities other than non-profit to mange trademarks in this way.
Sure, but I find "four levels of open" a simple and easy way to explain to newcomers why just the license isn't enough; the word 'open' is already overloaded so 
And it's *possible* that for-profits can manage trademarks for the greater good - it's just much less likely to work well over time. There are few assurances, even with public charity governance restrictions in tax law, but they certainly help greatly.
If you find it useful, that's cool. As I've said, it doesn't really mesh for me — not just the trademark thing.