I've always read and enjoyed Steve's posts, but here he comes off smug (despite the self-depricating jokes) as if he's summoning enlightment for the audience, when the talk is simply obtuse. Is a trademark necessary? Hardly. You can call something 'free' and yet try to charge for it. No one needs to trademark the word 'free' to protect it. In the same way, if some companies are using the 'open source' moniker without releasing their source, it will become quickly evident to the customer.
Could there be a certification based on a set of standards? Sure. What that would look like is a great topic. But simply a lecture on basic marketing concepts is embarrassing and I think when Steve looks back on this video, it will be with a wince. (In his defence, I'm glad no one has had a camera around during any one of my numerous embarrassments.
Wasn't the term "open source software" invented specifically to get away from the word "free" in "free software"? They (companies) recognized that there was a branding problem all along.
Could there be a certification based on a set of standards? Sure. What that would look like is a great topic. But simply a lecture on basic marketing concepts is embarrassing and I think when Steve looks back on this video, it will be with a wince. (In his defence, I'm glad no one has had a camera around during any one of my numerous embarrassments.