Michael Casey posted this at LibraryCrunch last night. As one of those who suggested this to him, I’ll quote the whole thing as a way of reinforcing the claim against future foolishness:
Oâ€™Reilly has taken steps to consolidate use of the term â€œWeb 2.0â€, claiming it as a service mark. This has caused several worried library folk to contact me regarding â€œLibrary 2.0â€ and its usage.
I first published the term â€œLibrary 2.0â€ in September of 2005. I have always considered the term â€œLibrary 2.0â€, used alone or in combinations such as â€œLibrary 2.0 Conferenceâ€, to be in the public domain, usable by anyone, and not subject to trademark or service mark registration. I would hate to see this changed by anyone attempting to turn the term itself into a commercial venture.
It appears well-established that “Library 2.0” is Michael Casey’s coinage. I believe his post should be strong evidence opposing any attempt by a company to register the term as a servicemark or trademark, by itself or in any generic combination such as “Library 2.0 conference.” Casey’s done the right thing here, which will come as no surprise to anyone who’s dealt with him.
This may also be a good point to remind those who believe that Walt Crawford is the foremost “anti-Library 2.0” person around there: I’m not an anti-Library 2.0 person at all, as a reasonably careful reading of the special Cites & Insights should clarify.
I think I’ll adopt the same usage here that Peter Suber tagged me with as regards open access: I’m an independent. (Which really means largely in favor of the concepts, but choosing to continue thinking and writing about difficulties and refinements.)