Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at damore.org> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What I've stipulated is, I don't think that Sun can be counted on to
>> bind itself to a policy. Even if it is the intent of the folks making
>> the decisions *today* to do so, I would be unsurprised if marketing
>> conditions change where Sun wants to do something *else* that isn't
>> necessarily in line with whatever policy might be adopted.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that a non-profit foundation looks increasingly
>> necessary. Without it, we exist entirely at the pleasure of Sun. I'm
>> not sure that this is a good idea, even though I don't think Sun has
>> anything but the community's best interests at heart.
>>
>
> We already exist entirely at the pleasure of Sun, in a sense; they pay
> for everything!
>
> If they decided to shut the domain off tomorrow and then enforce
> strict trademark usage, all we would be left with would be the
> codebase and a lot of disenchanted people.
>
> That would effectively bring everything to a halt; of that I am certain.
>
Of course. I don't think it will happen. But it also means that Sun
can change courses in less drastic manners, that ultimately have
repercussions for the community. Indiana is a case in point. Right
now, the community has no authority to do anything other than *ask* Sun
to do a certain thing.
If that is going to remain the case, where the community has no control
over the web server, web pages, SCM, RTI, or ARCs, then we should quit
calling ourselves OpenSolaris-*anything*, except perhaps an "OpenSolaris
User Group".
I don't *think* this is the way either Sun or the community intended
this to go. But maybe I'm totally misunderstanding.
> However, if I really believed they were ever going to do that, I
> wouldn't have joined this community.
>
Precisely.
>
>> A separate non-profit might make it possible for other corporate
>> sponsors to participate in the project more fully. Imagine, for
>> example, if IBM decided they want to participate (imagine an IBM
>> sponsored S/390 or POWER port.) Right now there is not really a good
>> way for them to do so.
>>
>
> Who pays for the non-profit though? Sun?
>
Sure, at least initially. Frankly, the non-profit might charge
membership fees for corporate members. They might even charge fees for
voting privileges, although that would probably be highly controversial.
I don't think it has to cost very much to run a non-profit, but I do
admit, I"m mostly ignorant of the costs involved.
> That's my problem with a non-profit.
>
> The primary issues facing our community are not naming; are not
> trademark usage; and certainly aren't the lack of a non-profit
> foundation.
>
> The primary issues facing our community are primarily technical and
> logistical.
>
Yes. But right now *all* of those issues are totally dependent upon
Sun. The community will forever be tied by the purse strings unless we
can at least demonstrate some *basic* ability to govern ourselves.
This does mean being able to manage modest resources. It does mean
having an identify that is something other than a subdivision of Sun.
> Ask just about anyone (like me!!!) that has tried to integrate with a
> consolidation or has RTIs.
>
Yes. And those need to be worked as well. But the fact that those
problems exist doesn't mean that the others don't as well.
-- Garrett
