On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at > opensolaris.org> wrote: > >> > > >> >> usage policy in the open), but I think that seizing the OpenSolaris > name > >> >> from the community and co-opting it for the use of its own > distribution > >> >> > >> > > >> > How did they seize something for a purpose that they never gave it for? > >> > > >> > How can we feel indignant about the usage of a name to which we had > >> > limited rights to use? > >> > > >> > The trademark has always been theirs *we* were the ones to co-opt it > >> > with their permission at launch. > >> > > >> > co-opting would only apply if it was our property; it is not, it is > theirs. > >> > > >> > > >> I agree, it's not our property - but every indication which Sun gave was > >> that they setup the OpenSolaris community around an OpenSolaris codebase > >> that was vendor neutral. And it's not just the external indication, > >> this was a decision reached internally and this was exactly how Sun > >> wanted to proceed. > >> > > > > If that is the case; that message was poorly communicated. > > > > I never had that understanding from the first day. > > > Really? Everyone else, including OpenSolaris Engineering, and everyone > I know within Solaris engineering had that understanding.
I think that's my point. *within Solaris engineering*; it was very poorly communicated to external people. > > I also don't see Sun choosing to allow a specific distribution to use > > the trademark as being not "vendor neutral." > > > Do you see Sun choosing its own distribution to be dubbed OpenSolaris at > the expense of all others as being "vendor neutral"? I don't see it being "at the expense of all others." I see it as being to the *benefit* of all others because of the ecosystem it will produce. > >> 2 and a half years later, Sun decides it wants to pursue a different > >> route, take back what's theirs, and go take it in a different > >> direction. Again, that's well within their rights - but is poor form > >> and certainly not reflective of an open community. > >> > > > > To me, I don't view it as taking anything back. In fact, I remember at > > launch day how there was some argument over the restrictions over the > > trademark and being able to create web page buttons, etc. > > > > If anything, usage of the trademark is more permissive today than it > > was when the project was first launched. > > > > Not only that, Sun is allowing *more* usage of that trademark than > > what was previously allowed. > > > > I don't see how people can spin this as a negative. > > > Correction.... usage of the trademark is not more permissive today. > It's more *explicit* today, but that's not the same as permissive. > (which is a good thing , btw. Just wanted to correct that since they > are not one and the same) No, it is more permissive because without *explicit* permission you don't have permission at all! When the project was first launched, we couldn't even put web buttons, etc. on our pages. Sun is also establishing guidelines allowing others producing distributions to use the name in certain ways. In this case, I believe explicit is == more permissive. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
