On 02/07/2010 14:51, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
While I can understand it when it applies to commercial only products it
doesn't make much sense
when applied to open source products being in development.
This is a new aspect of the long standing tension with the dual nature
of the distro named OpenSolaris, since it is a commercial product for
which Sun& Oracle generate revenue via support contracts.
Sure, we could rename the distro, but that wouldn't get users more advance
information, just make it clearer that it's a commercial product built out
of an open source base.
I for one never had any issue with the name.
The problem though is that new builds of /dev are not being made public
and there is no new /stable release either. And while it is a commercial
distro and the same time it isn't. Unless Oracle wants to change the
rules and treat OSOL distro as a commercial product only and reduce Open
Solaris community to discussions and code contributions only... but that
would be a big mistake imho.
So far the way it worked was that we had /dev and also stable releases.
And thanks to some great technologies not only many people but also many
companies deployed them. Some of them even probably bought a support for
it if needed.
I don't see an issue on Oracle's trying to monetize Solaris 10 and Open
Solaris as well. Sun did try it as well.
But if it were to happen in the expense of free and open source OSOL
distrubution that would be a mistake.
Right now though the biggest issue is a scarcity of information in
regards to what's going on, why and how.
--
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
