[MaxBarraclough]

> In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'.

I don't see the difference. Open source software is a term of art with a specific meaning accepted by its community. When people misuse the term, invariably in such a way as to broaden it to include whatever it is they're pushing, it's right that the community responds harshly.

[CamperBob2]

Terms of art do not require licenses. A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.

This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists. OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.

[MaxBarraclough]

> Terms of art do not require licenses.

Agreed. There is no trademark on aileron or carburetor or context-free grammar. A couple of years ago I made this same point myself. [0]

> A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.

This taxonomy doesn't hold up.

Again, it's a term of art with a clear meaning accepted by its community. We've seen numerous instances of cynical and deceptive misuse of the term, which the community rightly calls out because it's not fair play, it's deliberate deception.

> This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists

It is not. Trademark law exists to protect brands, not to clarify terminology.

You seem to be contradicting your earlier point that terms of art do not require licenses.

> OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.

I haven't expressed any opinion on that topic, and I don't see a need to.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31203209

[CamperBob2]

If the OSI members wanted to "clarify the terminology" in a way that permitted them (and you) to exclude others, trademark law would have absolutely been the correct way to do that. It's too late, however. The ship has sailed.

Come up with a new term and trademark that, and heck, I'll help you out with a legal fund donation when Facebook and friends inevitably try to appropriate it. Apart from that, you've fought the good fight and done what you could. Let it go.