On 12-Feb-08, at 8:00 PM, Rainer Heilke wrote: > My thanks to the OGB for following through with this issue, and for > bringing Sun's response to us. Thanks also to Sun for thinking about > this issue and continuing the dialog. > > I think this is a very positive response from Sun. They have a need > (even a legal responsinility to their shareholders) to protect their > brands and trademarks. That said, they are expressing a willingness > to work with the community to find ways to share said trademarks in > ways that accommodate the community while not jeopardizing their > legal responsibilities. > > I think item 2 makes it clear that this is, in many ways, a starting > point. Sun is learning as it goes. The second last paragraph in item > 1 states as much, while we all know the incident mentioned in the > last paragraph of item 1 was a faltering step to many here. But, Sun > has invited input in an open forum. While Sun can't please everyone, > they are at least trying and are willing to, at a bare minimum, > listen. That's more than most companies will do, and is a solid > foundation to start building upon.
You got that from the response? All I got from it is "we're calling indiana 'OpenSolaris' to the exclusion of all others, and if you don't like, tough" I found it a very disheartening response from Sun and a total failure to listen & work with the community. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20080212/3dfab96c/attachment.bin>
