On 01/11/2007, Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:14:15PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > Solaris is Solaris; OpenSolaris is a separate thing. To imply > > OpenSolaris is Solaris is a mistake no matter which distribution > > represents it. You also shouldn't make implications without claims. So > > far, Indiana has done nothing permanent that causes deviation from > > Solaris or OpenSolaris origins (unless stagnation matches your > > definition). > > In thinking about the use of trademarks and how we express ourselves > as a community, it's important to remember that Solaris shaped, and > was shaped by, the professional values of a large number of engineers > who are now Members of our community. It's worth trying to > distinguish the values we hold from the expression of those values in > the form of Solaris; they're deeply related but not exactly the same. > > It is for us to decide how we express our values; it is up to Sun to > manage the image of Solaris. That OpenSolaris (the word) is > considered a derivative of Solaris and therefore under Sun's control > is a potential sticking point, but it shouldn't distract us from > figuring out how we wish to present our own values as an engineering > community.
That was exactly my point, and I thank you for wording it far better than I could. Sun is responsible for defining and managing Solaris. If people hold onto the idea that OpenSolaris == Solaris, then Sun will always be in control of defining it. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
