On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:05 AM, John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, another question then. > > What subset of packages are required to qualify for compatibility? > > Say for example I build a distro that only includes SUNWips, > SUNWos-net ( or whatever ON will be called ) and the rest are pulled > from another repo ( blastwave, for example ). > > And lets say this distro builds on top of a whole slew of weird > packages that are mostly incompatible with anything that indiana > includes ( say... the freebsd userspace ) compiled with a compiler > that makes ABI compatibility an impossibility ( like gcc 2.95 ) > > Is it still " BreakFOO - an OpenSolaris Distribution " ? technically > you can use IPS to pull in all the indiana stuff and make it > compatible, and it includes a subset of packages that indiana does, > but in and of itself it is not. >
It is just a matter of time before OpenSolaris is equated to Indiana and not ON. History of the term is then forgotten. When that happens any other community distro even those at OS.o may not want to use the TM term to avoid confusion. With a product to use, world associates the term with the product and the community is assumed to revolve around it. Cut & slice whichever way, the result is a given. Changing the fine-print will not help. I have not been for Indiana using the name, but given the restriction, I do not see why any community distro would want to identify their independent efforts with "OpenSolaris - the distro" by using the term "built on OpenSolaris technology". Hence no point fighting for the term. The current T&M guidelines in the wiki (0.12 version) seems to be good enough within the limitation we have. -Shiv
