[nottorp]

> They own the trademark of "Open Source"

So every time I talk about open source I'm a dirty trademark infringer and IP pirate?

[ternaryoperator]

They do not own the Open Source trademark. They tried to trademark "open source", but the USPTO denied the application. Since then, they've worked at convincing the public that OSS means anything with a license approved by the OSI. This too is not so. For example, SQLite, arguably the most successful OSS tool ever built, is not covered by an OSI license and doesn't intend to be.

[Flimm]

SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain, ostensibly removing all copyright restrictions. Technically, it has no license for the OSI to list as an OSI license.

[CamperBob2]

In their view, yes, if you don't conform to their prescriptivist take on the subject.

The fact that they have fooled so many people into thinking they own a trademark on a generic phrase is, however, pretty impressive.

[nottorp]

Do they own it or not?

In the US you can trademark and patent H2O if you insist a bit, so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually owned the actual trademark.

[g0db1t]

They don't own it