On 02/11/2007, Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 06:29 -0700, John Plocher wrote: > > Would something as simple as calling it > > > > Indiana 10/07 - an OpenSolaris Developer Preview > > > > meet the intent of this proposal? > > IMHO that name is better but still problematic because it could still be > read as output of the community as a whole, when it's really just a > project's fork/branch of opensolaris. > > I'd think that "Project Indiana's 10/07 OpenSolaris developer preview" > would not have this problem.
That's walking a fine line. The whole problem I see with trying to force Indiana to use the trademark a certain way is that you haven't defined how anyone else can use it. For example, Nexenta is using the OpenSolaris trademark in their marketing materials for the commercial product they just launched today; I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. You're enforcing specific rules for Indiana when really this should be about defining rules for everyone. However, that seems rather presumptuous since the community hasn't yet defined what usage of the trademark they find acceptable. I would strongly encourage you to reword your proposal to indicate that *all* distributions should abide by the recommendation with Project Indiana as the focus. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
