Shawn Walker wrote: > On 01/11/2007, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at damore.org> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > But here's the thing. Sun pays for everything. > > Sun owns the webservers. > > Sun pays the people that make the hamsters dance in their wheels. > > Sun pays the engineers that work on Solaris and, indirectly or > directly, OpenSolaris. > > Sun owns the trademark. > > Sun pays for the bandwidth. > > Sun does the legal due diligence for everything to work together. > Agree on all the points. I think up until this point, Sun has been an excellent steward. > It seems as though the community enjoys making decisions as long as > someone else is paying and ultimately responsible for them. > > With that said, I do think that community should have some say over > how things are done. I just think that the community correspondingly > has to take a level of responsibility that I suspect most are > unwilling to take. > > For me, I'm perfectly happy with the *millions* of dollars and > thousands(?) of man hours Sun has spent on the community's behalf and > the work they're doing. > > As am I... what I don't like is Sun purporting to have done this in the community openly - when in fact it hasn't. It sets a bad precedent for future actions, and it dismisses the actual community discussion and efforts that actually happened prior to this. >> 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) >> > > I don't think they can cede complete control unless we have a > non-profit and that's just not necessary. Instead, clearly defined > control over the trademark that they bind themselves would be more > appropriate. > > I agree, I think we're not at the point where we can successfully run and maintain a community foundation. We're simply not there. I'm perfectly happy to have Sun funding and running everything (for all the reasons you pointed out above), but I would like for Sun to act in good faith with the community, in an open and transparent manner as it purports to be doing in press releases, and project statements.
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
