On 02/11/2007, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Nicholas Solter writes: > > The OGB resolution at hand seems to me to be unnecessarily > > obstructionist. That is, it simply says that Indiana can't call itself > > OpenSolaris without specifying what needs to take place for Indiana to > > start calling itself OpenSolaris. > > It cites the lack of a trademark policy and identifies that and future > engagement as a path forward. > > > There's only a vague reference to > > endorsement of the community. What does that mean? If it's simply a > > vote, can't we just put it to a vote and get it over with? > > You'd think. The proponents of the single "OpenSolaris distribution" > have been quite vocal in opposing such a vote and asking for lengthy > delays -- several months of delay in fact.
Pardon; but I'm a proponent and I am not opposed to a vote. Please don't attribute such a feeling to all who feel that there should be a single "OpenSolaris distribution." Which also isn't true; I don't think there should be a single one, just a reference one that is the *official* one. -- 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
