Re: Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark

> Dear OSI Board members:
>
> Please see http://www.jbilling.com/?q=node/7&pl=pr
> Note OSI Certified logo.
>
> The company in question, Sapienter Billing Software Corporation, is yet
> another Web 2.0 company using MPL 1.1 + an "Exhibit B" badgeware
> addendum, calling it "open source".  However, this firm takes one step
> further the stance characteristic of Socialtext, SugarCRM, Alfresco,
> Zimbra, Qlusters, Jitterbit, Scalix, MuleSource, Dimdim, Agnitas AG,
> Openbravo, Emu Software, Terracotta, Cognizo Technologies, ValueCard,
> KnowledgeTree, OpenCountry, and 1BizCom, by using OSI's certification
> mark in outright violation of OSI's licensing terms -- or, at least, I'd
> be surprised to learn otherwise.  Therefore, I'm mentioning that use, in
> case corrective action is needed.
>
>
> I'd suggest Sapienter illustrates why "Exhibit B" licences (though
> certainly _not_ badgeware licences generically) have become, in my view,
> a serious problem:
>
> o  Substantively all (probably literally all 19) of the above-listed firms
>    already have considerable history of claiming in public to be open source.
>
> o  Few if any mention their licences' lack of OSI approval.  Many
>    imply otherwise; one (Sapienter) outright claims approval (as noted).
>
> o  Not ONE has applied for OSI approval, though many are demonstrably
>    aware of OSI's approval process.  It's also notable that
>    many of their modified-MPL licences were reportedly written by OSI
>    General Counsel Mark Radcliffe in his private capacity -- so it's
>    doubtful many are unaware.
>
> o  Several of those firms' officers have already turned a deaf ear
>    (so far) to suggestions on OSI license-discuss that they make their
>    licences comply with OSD#10 ("License Must Be Technology-Neutral" --
>    the main problem) by adding "if any" qualifiers to their licences'
>    requirements concerning "each user interface screen".
>
> o  At least one, Socialtext, falsely claims in public to use MPL 1.1
>    without mentioning its licence modifications at all.[1]
>
> Aside from Sapienter's outreach breach of trademark law, some might
> object that OSI simply cannot do anything, to correct this situation.  I
> beg to differ, and ask that OSI take appropriate, measured, and
> constructive action:  Please consider issuing a formal statement
> deploring use of "modified MPL" licenses in circumvention of OSI
> scrutiny, and especially their use without clearly disclosing lack of
> OSI approval.
>
> No one is denying the value of efforts to close the much-discussed ASP
> Loophole through suitable "attribution" clauses that _do_ respect the
> OSD and substantively allow code reuse, forking, and other underlying
> core notions of open source.  Reasonable people can create licences
> containing such clauses and get them approved.  Unfortunately, the
> above-cited companies are pointedly eschewing any such effort, thereby
> making a mockery of OSI's moral and other authority over open source.
>
> Please help us of the open source community's desire to help the OSI, by
> issuing a clear statement that we can use to enforce open source
> standards within this troublesome area.  Thank you.
>
> [1] http://www.socialtext.com/node/88
>
> Sincerely
> Rick Moen
> (representing himself)
>