I’m biased towards all software being open sourced.
Certificate marks look potentially useful if many more people cared about the value of open source (software freedom). People who do care probably already know common licenses, and custom licenses do not inspire any confidence (law ain’t easy).
It’s difficult to tell when people are internationally misleading others saying “open source” because many devs just say it to mean “you can see the code”. Some would sincerely, without ill-intent, call Unreal Engine open source. Would certificate marks promote an understanding?
I think it would. You could only include an OSI badge if you’re using an OSI-approved license. Tell people to look for that badge, and if it’s not there, they shouldn’t call it Open Source. Maybe that helps, idk.
Can OSI trademark “open source” and sue companies for not meeting its definition?
Trademark is for customers to know who made a thing, not how it works or what you do with it.
Certification marks are a type of trademark, and is precisely what is wanted here.
I’m biased towards all software being open sourced.
Certificate marks look potentially useful if many more people cared about the value of open source (software freedom). People who do care probably already know common licenses, and custom licenses do not inspire any confidence (law ain’t easy).
It’s difficult to tell when people are internationally misleading others saying “open source” because many devs just say it to mean “you can see the code”. Some would sincerely, without ill-intent, call Unreal Engine open source. Would certificate marks promote an understanding?
I think it would. You could only include an OSI badge if you’re using an OSI-approved license. Tell people to look for that badge, and if it’s not there, they shouldn’t call it Open Source. Maybe that helps, idk.