On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:33 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at > sun.com> wrote: > > > John Plocher writes: > > > > > ... means only Sun's > > > > >> distribution, then I'm sorely confused, as I no longer know what > to > > > > >> call the collective. > > > > > > > > Why does it matter if Sun takes it and makes it its commercial > > > > distribution as well? It is still the distro we construct out of > > > > our consolidations... > > > > > > At least to me, it leads to some fairly obviously confusing > > > situations. > > > > > > As distributors (Sun included) are allowed to pick and choose (and > > > even change) bits delivered by consolidations, there's no guarantee > > > that the content of these two (distro versus repo) match precisely. > > > It thus becomes possible for a given project to be "in OpenSolaris" > > > (because it's part of a consolidation) but "not in OpenSolaris" > > > (because Indiana chooses not to include those bits). And it's > > > possible for another project to be "not in OpenSolaris" (because it > > > hasn't integrated into any consolidation) but also "in OpenSolaris" > > > (because Indiana includes those bits, perhaps as part of its own > > > distribution-identifying "special sauce"). Even stranger situations > > > are also possible -- all under the same unifying term. > > > > > > It gets weird, and in other cases where we've had confusion about > > > terminology, we've ended up with completely avoidable but divisive > > > arguments. I think it'd be nice to head those off by using clearly > > > different and distinguishable terms for these artifacts -- not just > > > "OpenSolaris this" and "OpenSolaris that" -- but I guess that's just > > > not to be. > > > > > > Ah, well. > > > > Why is this not to be? Isn't this, truly a community decision? IE: If > > the community decides a new name to refer to the original OpenSolaris > > project, vs OpenSolaris the distro, is in order, why can't this > > happen? > > The community could do that, but I think you would end up with a > fractured community then. > > Those of us who supported the decision and those of us who didn't. > > Such divisive actions serve little purpose at this point. > > However, you are free to propose such a thing to the OGB and see if > they are willing to put it on the ballot, etc. > > > > I think if it was done with Sun's support it would do much to show > > that Sun acknowledges the community's feelings on the issue. (IE: Sun > > could say, "Hey, we know that we did something that many of you feel > > is wrong. We really, feel this is important to our business, but > > recognize that the community feels that their identity and self > > determination are at risk. If you guys decide, as a community, that a > > new name is order to carry on business and differentiate the original > > project from our new distro project, we will support it.") > > Why is it fair to expect Sun to support it or pay for it? Shouldn't > they get to do what they want independent of us? Aren't you always > advocating independence?
Why? Well, I am still hoping that Sun cares about this community's wishes, and well being. I am also hoping that Sun cares about it's own reputation in the open source community. (I certainly can say that most Sun employees I have spoken with care about this stuff.) BTW - You are absolutely correct. Sun doesn't have to support this proposal at all, I just felt that it would be best way for Sun and this community to find a common path. > > P.S. - It really is a decision the community needs to make. > > Is the community willing to pay for it? I doubt it. > > It sounds rather glamarous when you put it the way you do; but there > is a heap of legal, technical, and financial hurdles to cross in such > a seemingly "simple thing." Actually the biggest barrier is simply the will to do so. (Although this wall of FUD that you are throwing up, is a pretty big impediment as well.) This doesn't have to be difficult. Let's talk turkey, what are the "heap of legal, technical and financial hurdles" that you refer to? Financially -- this can be done, as a paper trademark filing costs $375 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2007september30_2007dec17.htm (I am sure that we can pass the hat. Worst case I will pay the $375 myself). (Cheaper if we stick to an electronic filing.) Technically -- This will take a little time, but it's not rocket science, we just don't need people running political interference, if this is what the community decides. Legally -- There is nothing legally preventing this. Cheers, -Brian > -- > 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 > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ
