199 lines
8.9 KiB
Plaintext
199 lines
8.9 KiB
Plaintext
Future of the Open Source trademark
|
|
|
|
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:16:26 GMT<BR>
|
|
There is currently some dispute about the status of the `Open Source'
|
|
trademark. The SPI board feel that it is important that the future of
|
|
the mark be decided in an open and transparent manner. Therefore, we
|
|
are making this announcement, which has three purposes:
|
|
|
|
1. To explain our view of the current situation.
|
|
2. To explain some of the background as we see it.
|
|
3. To consult the wider free software community about the future of
|
|
the `Open Source' trademark.
|
|
|
|
The rest of this announcement will go into these areas in more detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. THE CURRENT SITUATION
|
|
|
|
Software in the Public Interest, Inc (SPI) is a non-profit
|
|
organisation whose aims are to help the development and distribution
|
|
of open software and hardware. Currently SPI's associated projects
|
|
include the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, the Berlin windowing
|
|
system, the Gnome desktop, and others.
|
|
|
|
The SPI board believes that the Open Source trademark is currently
|
|
owned by SPI; however, Bruce Perens and other former board members of
|
|
SPI are in the process of setting up another organisation, the Open
|
|
Source Initiative, and claim that they own the mark (while repeatedly
|
|
demanding of the SPI board that they immediately transfer ownership of
|
|
the mark to OSI).
|
|
|
|
The SPI board feels that the Open Source trademark is an important
|
|
public asset which should be owned and managed for the benefit of the
|
|
free software community. We feel that the mark should be owned by an
|
|
open and accountable organisation, preferably an organisation
|
|
controlled by a membership consisting of free software developers.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, we feel that any transfer of the mark to another
|
|
organisation should be carried out with due care and thoughtfulness,
|
|
and after a public consultation.
|
|
|
|
An online discussion between the SPI and OSI boards has failed to
|
|
reach consensus. The OSI board continues to demand immediate transfer
|
|
of the mark, and has stated to us an intent to take immediate and we
|
|
believe possibly fraudulent unilateral action with the trademark
|
|
office to achieve this.
|
|
|
|
The SPI board continues to maintain that any transfer should take
|
|
place with due consideration, and in particular, that a public
|
|
consultation should take place before any transfer. Relations having
|
|
broken down, we are now therefore acting unilaterally in distributing
|
|
this announcement and request for comments.
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the SPI board hopes that the community will give due
|
|
consideration to their belief that the mark should be managed by an
|
|
open and transparent organisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY - GORY DETAILS
|
|
|
|
(a) SOFTWARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST http://www.spi-inc.org/
|
|
|
|
SPI was incorporated in June 1997 by Bruce Perens, Ian Murdock and Tim
|
|
Sailer, originally as a legal vehicle for the Debian project. Ian
|
|
Jackson was appointed to the board shortly thereafter.
|
|
|
|
Following various discussions about the subject amongst board members
|
|
and members of the Debian Project, by mid-March 1998 the board members
|
|
had all agreed that SPI should broaden its scope to more than just
|
|
Debian; since then, various other projects have become associated with
|
|
SPI as it continues to broaden its scope. The new SPI board are
|
|
anxious to continue this process.
|
|
|
|
Up until August 1998, there had been continuous rumblings about lack
|
|
of openness on the part of SPI. (Ian Jackson had attempted to improve
|
|
matters, for example by scanning in and publishing the bylaws, which
|
|
had previously not even been available to the supposed members of the
|
|
organisation.) On the 4th and 5th of August, matters came to a head,
|
|
and the three board members apart from Ian Jackson resigned
|
|
simultaneously, apparently due to criticism about the closed nature of
|
|
the organisation.
|
|
|
|
As required by the bylaws, Ian Jackson appointed a new board,
|
|
including Dale Scheetz, Nils Lohner and Martin Schulze. Since then
|
|
the new board has been working to put the affairs of the organisation
|
|
in order. For example, there do not appear to be any board meeting
|
|
minutes, resolution minutes or membership records, and we believe that
|
|
some trademark documents (including some for the Open Source
|
|
trademark) are still with former board members.
|
|
|
|
The new board have set up the SPI web site, giving details of the
|
|
organisation's bylaws and articles of incorporation, board meeting
|
|
minutes and resolutions, and so forth. We have just approved two key
|
|
resolutions regarding our relationship with our associated projects
|
|
and assets we hold - the Framework for Associated Projects, and the
|
|
Statement and Promises on Intellectual Property, and these are now
|
|
published on our site.
|
|
|
|
The board plan to revise the bylaws appropriate to the wider role for
|
|
the organisation which was agreed informally by the previous board.
|
|
In particular, the board will establish new rules for membership which
|
|
will allow free software developers to become members of the
|
|
organisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) THE `OPEN SOURCE' TRADEMARK
|
|
|
|
The `Open Source' trademark was registered in SPI's name by Bruce
|
|
Perens in February 1998, anticipating the wider role that would be
|
|
agreed for SPI. Since then the mark has been managed by Eric Raymond.
|
|
|
|
According to Bruce and Eric, on the 20th of March 1998 Bruce sent Eric
|
|
an email which claimed that `SPI hereby transfers' all interest in the
|
|
Open Source trademark to Eric. This message did not follow a board
|
|
resolution to this effect, and indeed at least one other board member
|
|
was not aware of its existence until it was forwarded back to the
|
|
current board by Eric during the current dispute ! It is not the view
|
|
of the current board that this email has any legal validity, as it was
|
|
sent without approval of the board.
|
|
|
|
Shortly following their resignation from the board of SPI, the former
|
|
board members moved to set up a new organisation, the `Open Source
|
|
Initiative', which they are currently in the process of incorporating.
|
|
|
|
Since this time Bruce Perens has repeatedly demanded the immediate
|
|
transfer of the Open Source trademark to this new organisation.
|
|
|
|
The SPI board engaged in discussions with Eric Raymond regarding the
|
|
future of the mark. After some discussion, during which the new SPI
|
|
board stated that we don't believe we have all the paperwork, and
|
|
expressed our reservations about the new OSI organisation, Eric became
|
|
convinced that SPI was failing to honour its promise (as evidenced by
|
|
Bruce's 20th of March email) to transfer the mark to him, and also
|
|
demanded its immediate transfer to OSI.
|
|
|
|
The SPI and OSI boards met online to discuss the matter. There was
|
|
much discussion of procedural niceities. When substantive matters
|
|
were reached, Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond insisted that OSI or Eric
|
|
already own the mark; Eric Raymond expressed the view that he
|
|
personally should decide on the mark's future, and denied that there
|
|
was such a thing as a `public asset'; the OSI board members present
|
|
accused SPI of footdragging.
|
|
|
|
The SPI board maintained that an open and accountable organisation,
|
|
preferably a membership organisation, should manage the mark. We
|
|
stated that we wished to consult a public consultation exercise
|
|
regarding the mark's future. We expressed a willingness to transfer
|
|
the mark to another open organisation. We expressed reservations
|
|
about certain current OSI board members, Bruce Perens in particular.
|
|
|
|
The SPI board maintained that at least at the moment, SPI is a more
|
|
open, accountable and transparent organisation than OSI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. PUBLIC CONSULTATION
|
|
|
|
In accordance with SPI's Statement and Promises about Intellectual
|
|
Property, the SPI board are conducting a public consultation exercise
|
|
to determine the future of the Open Source trademark.
|
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, we can see four options:
|
|
|
|
(a) Retain the mark, managed by Eric Raymond if he is willing.
|
|
|
|
(b) Turn the mark over to another free software organisation.
|
|
Which one ?
|
|
|
|
(c) Turn the mark over to the Open Source Initiative, which is in the
|
|
process of being set up by Bruce Perens and others.
|
|
|
|
(d) Retain the mark, and appoint new manager(s). Who ?
|
|
|
|
We would be grateful if members of the free software development
|
|
community would let us know their thoughts on the matters we've raised
|
|
here.
|
|
|
|
Please mail us at <opensource-consult@spi-inc.org>, giving your views
|
|
and reasoning. If you feel we might not know who you are, please also
|
|
state your association with, and contribution to, the free software
|
|
community.
|
|
|
|
The consultation period will end at midnight at the end of the
|
|
calendar year 1998, UTC. All consultation responses will be made
|
|
public by SPI after the consultation period has closed, unless the
|
|
respondent specifically requests otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. CONTACTING AND PARTICIPATING IN SPI
|
|
|
|
For general information about SPI, please see our web site, at
|
|
www.spi-inc.org. General enquiries should go to spi@spi-inc.org.
|
|
Press enquiries to press@spi-inc.org, please. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
If you want to discuss matters relating to SPI, please use our mailing
|
|
lists - details on our web site. Please use the `spi-general' list
|
|
for discussion of the Open Source trademark.
|
|
|
|
From: Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
|