There is a recursive irony in the public debate about the Generic Attribution Provision proposed before the Open Source Initiative.
In blogspace, David Berlind raises the red flag broadly and narrowly on vendors and projects calling themselves open source without using an OSI approved license or having their license certified. In fact, there is no trademark on "open source." The commercial open source vendors David identifies broadly and narrowly in his second post are not breaking any rules or undermining the community. This doesn't mean David's flag is moot, there is an underlying confusion in the market he is bringing to light.
There are clear incentives for companies and projects to seek to be OSI Certified, because it is a trademark. Trademark is the the one body of intellectual property law that largely supports innovation with relative Freedom -- and trademark is attribution. Open Source projects that have followed the process and gained certification have earned something. It is a process that is inevitably burdensome and risky, as is any process, especially subject to an open community. But because it is difficult, no matter how helpful those involved, it garners meaning. The certification mark means something, a signal of trust, relative efficiency to the noise of the market, acceptance in the bazzar backed by conversations that others can join.
The recursive irony is that Socialtext seeks certification attributable to OSI for a license that includes attribution. The OSI Certified badge will be proudly displayed. A signal that we are playing by the rules of the open source community and by doing so contribute value to the community.
For the Socialtext community, to be part of it must mean something. Those that preceded you must have done something. Being spawned and rooted by a commercial open source company must mean more than a value proposition that attracts. Leadership means more than creating something on your own and citizenry means being a part of an inevitably larger whole. People participate through social contracts. Agreements build upon agreements to constitute a body made of bodies. We think that the Socialtext Public License attribution provision will compound community value as the OSI Certified badge does, and will not stifle innovation as the Creative Commons attribution provision has proven.
Some companies may not choose or be able to attain the value of the OSI Certification mark. They can use the term "open source" to describe their offerings, but it is of less value to be part of the non-standard part of the market.
I already find the license-discuss mailing list full of noise, engaged in personality conflicts and not deliberating the approval in question. Partially this is because of the mailing list as a tool, which is lacking the attribution affordance of hypertext, and the emphasis of identity of contributors without persistence leading to personal flame-wars, the babel problem revisited, lack of memory, permanent addressability and all the things new tools have moved past. The conversation even spiraled into notions of an explicit reputation system outside of certification (the horrors, for goodness sake move this to a blog or wiki and let the community imply judgment). Oh, wait, this is not about our tool, but tooling the machines of the future.
