Glynn Foster wrote: > Stephen Lau wrote: > >> Why bother? Sun has shown in the naming announcement that any amount of >> iteration can be summarily ignored by Sun, and instead an (arbitrary) >> decision can be made by Sun executives without any need to consider >> community input. >> >> That's not the sort of iteration I'm interested in. >> > > I disagree to some extents. I think we have yet to see a trademark policy > proposal based on the discussions internal to Sun (this had to happen, since > it > is the trademark holder). I know that discussions externally on the > trademark-policy-dev mailing list *have* proved useful in identifying the > typical use cases and scenarios around some of these issues. I see that as a > useful iteration. Asking Sun to take a backseat on this isn't going to happen, > and we all know this - whether we like it or not, is another question. >
Right - I thought the iteration (internal & external people participating) on trademark-policy-dev have been very useful; what I don't like is Sun choosing to ignore those, and releasing something using the trademark without having waited for the trademark policy discussion to finish first. I'm not asking Sun to take a backseat - I think if anything they *need* to drive this as the sole trademark holder/owner. I'm just asking them not to ignore community input, and not to falsely represent a decision as the community's decision, when in fact it hasn't been. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
