On Apr 20, 2007, at 18:55, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:32:15PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> We do have to take into account that trademark collisions still have >> to be avoided, even though we're only talking about projects here. > > No, we don't. Perhaps Sun does, but that's not our concern as a > community. Hosting is a helpful artifact; it is not core to the > concept of an OpenSolaris community creating and working on projects. > If Sun wants to impose this condition on projects hosted using its > resources, that's fine. It doesn't belong in a community policy.
You are wrong. If the OGB had legal responsibility for the community, it would need to protect itself from trademark infringement and your approach would be an abdication of responsibility that would render you personally liable for the costs to which you exposed the Board. But it does not. By "hosted" I do not mean web hosting. Even if the community is hosted elsewhere, until it becomes an independent entity Sun remains responsible for its actions regarding intellectual property of all kinds. Your proposal to expose Sun to unbounded risk is irresponsible. >>> Proposed name: Project Tesla: Solaris Enhanced Power Management >>> Not O.K. >>> Suggest: "Tesla: Solaris Enhanced Power Management" >>> (similar to... several, e.g. Reno and Tamarack) >> >> Not OK - Decorative. > > Ok by policy, not ok for hosting on Sun's resources. That is, if you > speak for Sun here. You are incorrect. See above. Additionally your constant assumption of a need to express independence from Sun is really odd. I speak, as you do, as an informed and experienced core contributor. If I was speaking for Sun I would say so. > >> * Including "Solaris" or "OpenSolaris" in the name is redundant since > > Agreed. Phew, at last! S.
