No. This is a fantasy.
A trademark does not take ownership of general words or phrases from the people.
A trademark does not take ownership of general words or phrases from the people.
If you allow stuff like "shared source" to be called open source, you reduce the term to a meaningless buzzword, like how the term "open" is frequently abused.
citing trademarks is a heavy handed approach, but many parties with a profit motive don't care about anything except strict legality.
This is relevant in particular to this blog because Microsoft has a history of attempting to change what the term means
Also, is "open source" really trademarked? Wtf? That's like a beef promo organisation trademarking "well done".
Except when that trademark is "Windows" or "Office" or "Word".
This is a bit of a digression from the original topic, but seems tangentially relevant given that we're talking about Microsoft accidentally misusing or deliberately abusing a term that has an accepted meaning in the marketplace, the very purpose for which trademarks were created.
[Also, I should have added the following disclaimer to the previous comment: Disclaimer: Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I worked for a company that seemed to have a chance at invalidating the Windows trademark, but when Microsoft offered a large settlement, my former employer took the money and ran.]
Likewise, it is reasonable that Microsoft can't call their competing license "open source" when that term already has an established commercial definition and trademark with a specific set of consumer expectations.
Further, until a tradmeark is filed or established by extensive use, competing products can use similar words in their titles. Once upon a time you could have had Microsoft Windows, OpenWindows, the comp.windows.x newsgroup (suggesting that X is a subset of the generic category of "Windows"), etc. Now they will sue if your OS name even rhymes with Windows.