Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote:
>
>> However, because Sun has forced the issue by unilaterally declaring
>> that Indiana is OpenSolaris, a vote is needed now. (Whether that is
>> for the Indiana name, or for Trademark and branding as a whole).
>>
>
> Please stop saying Sun; it's inflammatory and inaccurate. This was a
> decision made by a project with the allowance of other individuals at
> Sun. It should be obvious by now that not everyone agrees regardless
> of whether they work at Sun. Stating Sun in the way you do dismisses
> the individual views and makes a faceless corporation out of a
> company.
>
However, in the actions taken to release Indiana, and update the os.o
web page, Sun has acted independently. While the individual employees
may not agree with those actions, one can only presume that the actions
were taken with tacit approval of the decision makers at Sun, on Sun's
behalf. So the nomenclature is correct.
Now, that said, I do find it rather surprising that the top-level
OpenSolaris.org home page has changed so drastically, and apparently
without the blessing of the community. I guess this is because
marketing folks (and yes, there is an "OpenSolaris marketing" group at
Sun) "own" the web page, and those folks report into Sun's Indiana
project, unless I'm mistaken.
What I think we have here is a clear conflict of interest. I *do*
believe that *that* problem (regardless of my opinions for or against
Sun's usage of the trademark) needs to be resolved. Decisions about
*OpenSolaris* marketing *should* IMO, belong to the community rather
than to Sun.
Unless, we all agree, that Sun "owns" the OpenSolaris "brand" (it
does!), and decide as a community to rebrand ourselves in some fashion
that isn't Sun controlled. Some might call that a "fork" (of the
community, not necessarily of the code base.)
I personally consider that option a poor choice. But unless Sun is
willing to cede complete control of OpenSolaris to some community body
(OGB? or a new Foundation staffed by OGB appointees?) then I think
even the short term debate of OpenSolaris & Indiana is pointless.
That is because, frankly, marketing folks at Sun have shown (a number of
times) their willingness to usurp branding/naming conventions at the
drop of a hat. In other words, even if Sun agrees to abide by
whatever community decision is made *now*, I have no confidence that
Sun's marketing folks won't decide to hijack the name in the future.
And please make no mistake... I don't necessarily believe that Sun's
actions here have been contrary to the long term goals of the community
w.r.t. the *code base*, but I do think it was poorly executed to act in
this particular regard without the community's approval.
So, quite simply, I believe that there are only two ways forward:
1) Sun cedes complete control of the OpenSolaris mark to the community
(possibly establishing an actual non-profit to own/manage the mark)
or
2) The community "forks" with a new identity/mark, which is not based on
Sun's trademark portfolio.
I *much* prefer #1, as I believe it will avoid a potentially divisive
split, and build upon the vibrant community that has already formed
around the existing OpenSolaris mark. But, that requires Sun's
cooperation, and trust in the community.
Only if path #1 is taken, do I believe that a debate about Indiana's
naming as an OpenSolaris reference distribution (or whatever) can be
meaningfully had.
-- Garrett
