> > 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.
John_S: "+1" number 2 You say what I cannot articulate well enough (due to my limited English). -- Martin
