Shawn Walker wrote: > On 01/11/2007, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: > >> Shawn Walker wrote: >> >>> On 01/11/2007, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It depends on the viewpoint. Given that Sun is the only one who can >>>> declare the use of the trademark, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to >>>> say that Sun is the one who has made the decision. >>>> >>>> >>> Shall we then accuse Sun of not enforce trademark usage more strictly >>> since technically existing distributions don't even have permission to >>> use the trademark in the way some of them use it now? >>> >>> I didn't hear anyone accusing Sun of being bad until the trademark was >>> used in a way that some do not approve of. >>> >>> >>> >> +1, I agree totally. It's a tricky situation to be sure, because Sun >> has not done anything legally wrong. They own the trademark, they are >> free to do with it as they wish. >> >> The issue that myself (and others) have with Sun's action is that it was >> done in poor faith with the community. If Sun had gone after one of the >> other distributions (Belenix, Nexenta, etc.) for trademark infringement >> - it would have been the same situation.... while it's well within their >> rights as trademark owner, it shows poor faith in the community. >> >> Sun purports to want to work with the OpenSolaris Community in this >> issue, but in fact it hasn't. It initiated a discussion sure, but a >> discussion on a mailing list is a far cry from an authoritative decision >> by the community at large. >> >> *that* is my only beef with this action, nothing else. >> > > Maybe I as a community member don't feel that Nexenta, as a > hypothetical example, should be using the trademark in a certain way. > That's completely fair. It's a subjective opinion to be sure. I'm not saying my train of thought is right, and that everyone is wrong. I'm just asking for Sun to consider the voices that disagree with its use of the OpenSolaris trademark as the brand fo Indiana. > My problem here is the double-standard. People are accusing Project > Indiana (*ahem*) of using a trademark in a way that it is not > representative of the community. > > There are two problems with that: > > 1) The community has never formally defined what it believes to be an > acceptable use of the trademark (the community was asked to help with > this) > Agree > 2) As a result, any current usage of the trademark whether allowed by > Sun or not is not necessarily representative of the community since > the community never approved it. > Agree > If we're going to deny Project Indiana the ability to use the > trademark, then I think all parties should be denied it's use until > the community explicitly defines and approves its usage. > > Agree entirely... and that's all I want to see. I'm not saying Indiana shouldn't use the OpenSolaris trademark (my personal opinion is that it should, and I know I differ there from other OGB members). All I'd like to see is that this discussion and vote be done in the community and completed first before we go running off declaring Indiana is OpenSolaris (which has already happened).
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
