On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the problem I immediately see with that vision. > > It completely eliminates the possibility to innovate in the sphere of > package management
No, it doesn't. You can do what you want; you just don't get rights to the trademark. Seems fair to me. The point of having rules for the trademark is to ensure a level of quality and compatibility. A packaging system is obviously at the heart of both of those. > If IPS sucks and someone comes up with something > better, using it in a distro would preclude them from attaching I doubt IPS will suck; I trust the IPS team and Sun more than that. They are very capable engineers. > anything more substantive than " - a kindof, sortof I guess a little > bit of OpenSolaris code is in there, maybe" label to their distro, > because they aren't compatible with this "ecosystem" ( repackaged F/ > LOSS ) even if everything else is identical to Indiana. It is likely they will be able to use the "built on OpenSolaris" moniker instead of being able to claim compatibility. I don't see the problem in that. However, remember that the purpose of this discussion is to help determine that. > Particularly if they decide to do something odd like gentoo linux and > have a source-based packaging system. Which again goes against having rules to ensure certain compatibility and quality standards are met. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
