[Discuss] Legal Meetup Nov. 11th in NYC

[alicia]

Unfortunately, trademarking the logo was discussed about a year ago when we
decided to sign the co-exist agreement with OSI that included a statement
that we would not Trademark the oshw logo:

http://www.oshwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/OSI-OSHWA-Agreement.pdf

Andrew is correct as well, certifying for businesses would be the activity
of a business league - a 501c6. If we hear from enough of the community
that they want a policing organization, we can set up a 501c6 in addition,
but we are currently a 501c3. So far, every time policing by OSHWA gets
brought up there has been a push for self policing.


Alicia


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Michael Weinberg <
mweinberg at publicknowledge.org> wrote:

> I'll +1 on the TM/certification front.  I don't know that it is an
> either/or with patents, and the details will matter (a lot), but
> conceptually it is quite attractive as an option.
>
> Of course, that doesn't mean that this meeting is the right time/place to
> talk about it.  But the fact that it doesn't get discussed at this meeting
> also doesn't mean that it isn't worth talking about.
>
> -michael
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Marketply <contact at marketply.org> wrote:
>
>> **
>>  Thanks for your input Michael,
>>
>>  We won't be shaming anyone, nor taking retribution. The process has an
>> inherent reward for good behavior: credibility. That, together with
>> respect/fellowship is enough to make the process self-efficient.
>>
>>  Also, as you say it'll be self-correcting because people will remember
>> wrong certifications made in bad faith in a system that's transparent and
>> open.
>>
>>  😃,
>>
>>  Marino Hernandez
>> (just a founder of Marketply <http://www.marketply.org>)
>> 203-429-4205
>>
>>
>> > On October 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM Michael Turner <
>> michael.eugene.turner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> .....
>> > I'd charge a deposit for certification evaluation, which would not be
>> > refunded if it turns out basic criteria aren't met. Those that failed
>> > would furthermore see their applications appear on a Wall of Shame,
>> > with a Most Shameless Application of the Month featured. They'd have
>> > to pay even more to get de-listed from the Wall. But since they
>> > submitted their application in the open, nothing prevents others from
>> > copying onto a Wall of Shame of their own. Hey, sorry, we don't even
>> > know those people. You'll have to go talk to them, to see what their
>> > ransom demands are. What do you mean, "blackmail"? Did you read the
>> > fine print?
>> >
>> > Naturally, I'd call this "the Open Process for Openness
>> > Certification." It sounds cooler that way.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Michael Turner
>> > Executive Director
>> > Project Persephone
>> > K-1 bldg 3F
>> > 7-2-6 Nishishinjuku
>> > Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 160-0023
>> > Tel: +81 (3) 6890-1140
>> > Fax: +81 (3) 6890-1158
>> > Mobile: +81 (90) 5203-8682
>> > turner at projectpersephone.org
>> > http://www.projectpersephone.org/
>> >
>> > "Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward
>> > together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Weinberg, Vice President, PK Thinks
> 202-861-0020 (o) | @mweinbergPK
>
> Public Knowledge | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org
> 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036
>
> Promoting a Creative & Connected Future.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131024/25907d87/attachment.html>