Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > I've been making clear that I believe this is a problem ever since the > original Indiana Project proposal[0]. The conclusion from this was > that the project would proceed with the goal of creating a > distribution, which is not now and has never been controversial. The > project proceeded based on the expectation that this issue would be > revisited at a later time if desired. I took Glynn's final > response[1] in that thread to be acceptance of that general strategy. > Perhaps I was mistaken or perhaps the project team was just being > passive-aggressive. But to say that we've been ignorant of the > problem is inaccurate; in reality we've consistently expressed > concerns and the project team, with the winds of Sun's blessing and > powers under trademark law filling their sails, have simply > disregarded them.
Thanks for the clarification. > Because we have no desire or authority to prevent anyone from doing > whatever work they like, there has not been anything for OGB members > to do other than express their individual reservations and offer > guidance about how the project team might in the future choose to > pursue its goals successfully within the OpenSolaris framework. If > the project team were content to be known as Indiana or some other > name that does not imply the community's exclusive endorsement without > our consent, the entire controversy would evaporate very quickly. Agreed. -- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
