On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:26 PM, John Sonnenschein wrote: > 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"
Yep, it basically said "piss off", with a few factual inaccuracies thrown in as excuses. > I found it a very disheartening response from Sun and a total > failure to listen & work with the community. Ditto, though personally I find the lack of response to that response more disheartening. The community does not exist as a community. ....Roy
