Bryan Cantrill wrote:
Ian,
All right.
I don't even know where to begin.
Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to
the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called
OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?"
Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview
has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the
world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING?
Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we
are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP,
to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris
focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the
company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside
of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing?
Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate
in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris
brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible,
to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes
a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded
for being willing to take this step--or is this just another
case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else?
And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this
community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of
being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed
repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return
thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions?
Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely
abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation?
Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything,
so therefore we've given nothing?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit.
I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is
rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity --
but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is
nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members
of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is
a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one
emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name
"OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived
from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply
_be_ OpenSolaris.
There has absolutely not been consensus reached.
So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is
such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly
speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is
clearly such a divisive path?
This is obviously NOT a small issue.
- Bryan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc
_______________________________________________
trademark-policy-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
