[throwaway64]

Open Source a term with a single, specific definition.

It is damaging to the ideas of FLOSS to allow stuff like "shared source" to be called open source.

EDIT: Removed reference to "open source" being trademarked, it is in fact not, apologies for the confusion.

[hermanhermitage]

No. This is a fantasy.

A trademark does not take ownership of general words or phrases from the people.

[throwaway64]

The problem with this idea when applied to this case is the motivations of people wishing to use some alternate definition. There is a real profit motive in being able to call stuff "open source" when it doesn't grant its users the same kind of freedoms the BSD or the GPL license, etc, do.

If you allow stuff like "shared source" to be called open source, you reduce the term to a meaningless buzzword, like how the term "open" is frequently abused.

citing trademarks is a heavy handed approach, but many parties with a profit motive don't care about anything except strict legality.

This is relevant in particular to this blog because Microsoft has a history of attempting to change what the term means

http://opensource.org/node/280

[skrebbel]

Correct. A trademark is just that: a mark used in trade. It does not come with the ability to define a standard definition for the mark's meaning, other than "~ is a trademark of $ORGANISATION".

Also, is "open source" really trademarked? Wtf? That's like a beef promo organisation trademarking "well done".

[nitrogen]

A trademark does not take ownership of general words or phrases from the people.

Except when that trademark is "Windows" or "Office" or "Word".

[iy56]

When you ask your officemate to open the window, does legal tell you to stop saying that Word(TM) because you're not using it according to the way Microsoft defined it?

[nitrogen]

No, but if I hypothetically created and started describing a graphical windowing system as a "Windows," and a word processor as a "Word," Microsoft would surely complain. It seems a bit hypocritical to complain about others' dilution of Microsoft's own marks, but then dilute others' marks in return.

This is a bit of a digression from the original topic, but seems tangentially relevant given that we're talking about Microsoft accidentally misusing or deliberately abusing a term that has an accepted meaning in the marketplace, the very purpose for which trademarks were created.

[Also, I should have added the following disclaimer to the previous comment: Disclaimer: Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I worked for a company that seemed to have a chance at invalidating the Windows trademark, but when Microsoft offered a large settlement, my former employer took the money and ran.]

[iy56]

Window managers are still commonly called window managers today. Word processors are still called word processors. That's the point - Microsoft hasn't taken away these generic terms. No, you can't call your competing product the exact same thing they call theirs. Why should you be able to? That'd be retarded.

[nitrogen]

No, you can't call your competing product the exact same thing they call theirs.

Likewise, it is reasonable that Microsoft can't call their competing license "open source" when that term already has an established commercial definition and trademark with a specific set of consumer expectations.

Further, until a tradmeark is filed or established by extensive use, competing products can use similar words in their titles. Once upon a time you could have had Microsoft Windows, OpenWindows, the comp.windows.x newsgroup (suggesting that X is a subset of the generic category of "Windows"), etc. Now they will sue if your OS name even rhymes with Windows.