On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:22:10PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > I would say that in common usage, Linux is thought to refer to a > complete OS. e.g. - "RedHat Enterprise Linux". Realistically I'd even > go so far as to say most Linux users mostly directly interact with > userspace, and aren't intimately familiar with the kernel.
Common usage is insuffucuently precise to convey technical meaning. Every GNU/Linux distribution has a different goal, different values, different technologies, and different means of deploying those technologies. Even if one took "Linux" to mean "the collective set of GNU/Linux distributions, their contents, and the surrounding ecosystem" that would not provide any information about the work under consideration here. > Why can't we use Linux in a project name, if it is descriptive. I'm > pretty sure it is legal, and it would give meat to the statements There is no OGB-sanctioned policy yet on project naming, but considering that "Linux" in this case is not only *not* descriptive, since the actual technology covered by that name is not involved, but the fact that it is an international trademark associated with products that compete directly with those based on our own technology and offered by members of our community, even this anti-trademark torpedo damner sees a pretty obvious problem. > P.S. - How about the "Tuxedo" community., or LX-Solaris?? A nickel's worth of free advice: choose a name, and a technical focus, that reflects a desire to make OpenSolaris "better" rather than "Linux-like." It's hard to be excited about and supportive of a project with a nauseating name. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
