Sorry to see you leave, Roy. You have added a great deal to this project, and many of us have learned a great deal in the process. That may not be apparent at the moment, but perhaps we'll get to where we need to be over time.
Jim Roy T. Fielding wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Al Hopper wrote: > >> IMHO - the time for debate is over. The OGB effectively failed to >> influence Sun substansively. And, FWIW, I'm OK with that. Sometimes >> you're the driver and many times you're just a passenger. >> >> I remain positive and committed to the project. Now lets move forward >> and continue to evolve/refine the best OS on the planet.... >> > > Not me. > > Sun didn't just make vague statements to me about OpenSolaris; > they made promises about it being an open development project. > That's the only way they could get someone like me to provide > free labor for their benefit. Given Sun's recent track record > on breaking promises, another one doesn't surprise me at all. > > Just to be clear to everyone concerned, the trademark issue was > discussed at the first meeting of the CAB and regularly since then. > At no time whatsoever was it ever unclear that Solaris was the > trademark being controlled by Sun. "OpenSolaris" was only > controlled as necessary to prevent consumer confusion with the > "Solaris" mark, which is more than satisfied by the powers handed > out in the Charter and the agreement that only Sun's distro would > be called Solaris. That's all there is to it. > > Most of the stuff in that letter about Sun's responsibilities in > regard to "International Trademark Law" is nothing more than > snow being tossed in the eyes of technical folks who don't have > access to their own lawyers. More to the point, it has nothing to > do with the marketing decision to start calling Indiana "OpenSolaris" > instead of "Solaris Express". > > Somebody inside marketing decided to change the agreement we > had about distros and then pushed through their opinion based > on "legal"-excused b.s. rather than simply ask for a change via > the community process. Sun does that kind of thing to open source > developers all the time (witness the JCP fiasco), so again this is > no surprise to those of us who have been around awhile. > > Trademark law exists to protect consumers from fraud, not to > prevent companies from licensing their own trade names. The > criteria for such a license doesn't even need to be "objective." > It just has to be consistent in the eyes of the consumer. > > Yes, use of the name "OpenSolaris" by third parties would require > some form of Sun-controlled licensing scheme. The OpenSolaris > Community, however, is not a third party -- it is an informal > association that exists at the sole discretion of Sun and is fully > capable of being delegated limited decision-making authority > (but not ownership) over what *is* called OpenSolaris. That's > what the Charter does and it does not affect Sun's control over > the bare word "Solaris" at all because it doesn't give anyone > else the right to call something "OpenSolaris" (i.e., the > consumer is not confused and the Solaris mark is only used with > permission of the trademark owner). > > Sun gave up its right to make arbitrary decisions regarding the > phrase "OpenSolaris" as part of its public agreement with the > community in the form of the Charter. That was a self-imposed > restriction in exchange for the benefits of community-driven > development, freely made, and cannot be changed except in > accordance with the charter itself (for example, by amending or > dissolving the charter). The charter has therefore been violated. > Sun can't make decisions for the OGB any more than the OGB can > make decisions for Sun -- that was the whole point in having Sun > sign the Charter to create a separation of authority, since > there was no other means of determining authority given that > Sun retains ownership of all the IP. > > The truly stupid aspect of this issue is that, AFAICT, > most of the people still hanging around here (including myself) > think that it is a good idea for OpenSolaris to produce a reference > distribution of some kind within an open development project of > the OpenSolaris Community. The way to do that is fully defined by > the Constitution. In fact, if it weren't for the extremely > pig-headed way in which Indiana was thrust on the community as > Ian's private domain, it could have easily been a unifying path for > all of the distros. It could have given them a gate within > OpenSolaris in which to collaborate, instead of doing all of > their work in separate communities outside OpenSolaris. > > Indiana is just another private marketing team within Sun that > is making private decisions about "OpenSolaris" that aren't even > in line with the internal processes of Solaris Engineering, let > alone the published governance model of the OGB. > > Sun agreed that "OpenSolaris" would be governed by the community > and yet has refused, in every step along the way, to cede any real > control over the software produced or the way it is produced, > and continues to make private decisions every day that are later > promoted as decisions for this thing we call OpenSolaris. > Rather than be honest about it and restructure the community > to correspond to this MySolaris style of over-the-wall > development, Sun prefers to lie to the external community > members while ignoring their input. Yes, Sun has the legal > right to make that decision, just as it has a legal right to > dissolve the charter and start over with a new governance > model. The choices being made are NOT the problem. The problem > is the way that the choices are being made WHILE, at the same > time, portraying the project in public as a community-driven > effort. The community outcry would be horrendous if it weren't > for the fact that Sun is pressuring its own employees to keep > quiet instead of allowing them to participate as individuals. > > This well is poisoned; the company has consumed its own future > and any pretense that the projects will ever govern themselves > (as opposed to being governed by whatever pointy-haired boss > is hiding behind the scenes) is now a joke. Sun should move on, > dissolve the charter that it currently ignores, and adopt the > governing style of MySQL. That company doesn't pretend to let > their community participate in decisions, and yet they still > manage to satisfy most of their users. Let everyone else go > back to writing code/documentation for hire. > > There's nothing particularly wrong with that choice -- it is > a perfectly valid open source model for corporations that > don't need active community participation. IMO, the resulting > code tends to suck a lot more than community-driven projects, > but it is still open source. > > In any case, I am done with it. I hereby resign my status > as a Member of the OpenSolaris Community, effective immediately. > > Cheers, > > Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/> > Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFHs/uIW5aAEOBPmokRAm9QAJ4n7zaKZz+UlgA7VtBtPjHG7o4LIACeOSCg > WYWF14qZ992sl8JSAm6oQEU= > =FO9u > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
