On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> > wrote: > > > >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> > wrote: > >>> > >> > > >> >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at > opensolaris.org> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> usage policy in the open), but I think that seizing the > OpenSolaris name > >> >> >> from the community and co-opting it for the use of its own > distribution > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > How did they seize something for a purpose that they never gave it > for? > >> >> > > >> >> > How can we feel indignant about the usage of a name to which we had > >> >> > limited rights to use? > >> >> > > >> >> > The trademark has always been theirs *we* were the ones to co-opt > it > >> >> > with their permission at launch. > >> >> > > >> >> > co-opting would only apply if it was our property; it is not, it > is theirs. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> I agree, it's not our property - but every indication which Sun gave > was > >> >> that they setup the OpenSolaris community around an OpenSolaris > codebase > >> >> that was vendor neutral. And it's not just the external indication, > >> >> this was a decision reached internally and this was exactly how Sun > >> >> wanted to proceed. > >> >> > >> > > >> > If that is the case; that message was poorly communicated. > >> > > >> > I never had that understanding from the first day. > >> > > >> Really? Everyone else, including OpenSolaris Engineering, and everyone > >> I know within Solaris engineering had that understanding. > >> > > > > I think that's my point. *within Solaris engineering*; it was very > > poorly communicated to external people. > > > It's hard for me to refute that since I had the internal perspective at > the time. But certainly there are many external people who seemed to > have the same understanding (as shown by the # of people vocalising > their concerns and discontent with the current decision) > > >> > I also don't see Sun choosing to allow a specific distribution to use > >> > the trademark as being not "vendor neutral." > >> > > >> Do you see Sun choosing its own distribution to be dubbed OpenSolaris at > >> the expense of all others as being "vendor neutral"? > >> > > > > I don't see it being "at the expense of all others." I see it as being > > to the *benefit* of all others because of the ecosystem it will > > produce. > > > I'm not talking about the technological benefit/expense, I'm talking > strictly about the name. I agree I think Indiana will benefit many > other distros (the new installer, and IPS are two clear examples). But > strictly speaking, when one distribution assumes a name, no other > distribution can take that name - therefore it is at the expense of all > others. > There is however one thing that can be done to solve the indiana is opensolaris problem, but i believe none of us who care about the actual technology is willing to go that route. While the OGB has no power over what sun does with it's trademark, it does have power over the community and PROJECT spaces at osol.org. the rest of the plan is both easy to figure out from here and horrible to put into words so i will not.
nacho
