On Dec 10, 2007 11:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding at gbiv.com> wrote: > On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > On Dec 10, 2007 9:31 PM, Alan Coopersmith > > <alan.coopersmith at sun.com> wrote: > >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >>> On Dec 5, 2007 10:32 PM, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> * Is there any constitutional requirement that all content on > >>>> opensolaris.org be controlled via an OGB-approved entity? (such > >>>> as a > >>>> Community Group, Project, Board, or Committee) > >>> > >>> I assume then that either no-one knows or that no such > >>> constitutional > >>> requirement exists? > >> > >> You can read the Constitution as well as we can, but since you asked, > >> the closest I can see is: > > > > Yes. However, even when two people read the same document, they may > > obviously reach entirely different conclusions. > > The Sun and OGB have agreed to those terms within the context of a > long conversation, which defines them more than adequately.
Which is completely unhelpful to the community unless that long conversation is publicly documented somewhere. > >> The OpenSolaris Community has the authority and responsibility for > >> all decisions pertaining to the OpenSolaris software and > >> collaborative > >> infrastructure within the scope defined by the OpenSolaris > >> Charter. > >> > >> So if you define opensolaris.org as "collaborative > >> infrastructure", we > >> have the authority to make all decisions concerning it, including the > >> authority to delegate control of portions of it to others. > > > > The catch to that then, is the charter, which states: > > > > "However, nothing in this charter shall be construed so as to confer > > to the OGB: (a) any title or right > > under copyright, patent, trademark, or other intellectual property > > law; (b) control of or interest in > > any asset, tangible or intangible, of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of > > its subsidiaries; (c) control of > > or interest in Sun Microsystems, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries." > > > > I'm going to "play devil's advocate" for a moment; so please don't > > take this as my personal view: > > Then don't state it. A common principle in open source is to state > your own views, not those of others. We stand on the foundations laid by others every day; using what others have written to explore or analyze a topic is not disingenuous. > > * Technically, the server(s) that opensolaris.org, etc. is hosted on > > are a tangible asset of Sun Microsystems > > Yes. They have not been conferred to the OGB (Sun still owns them). > > > * Any decisions that pertain to one of the above areas are not under > > OGB control (direct or indirect) > > That's wrong. Having "control of or interest in" is a matter of > accounting for ownership, as in Sun retains the ability to take > those resources away from the OGB at any time. That does not say > anything about decisions that are made during the period in which > Sun has loaned the use of those assets to the OGB. I disagree. I believe the statements in the charter are of a minimilally-defined nature that are open to greater interpretation than what you seem to imply. What the charter says to me is that it is likely that we have the ability to control activities of the community on those servers, but not those of Sun if they apply directly to their copyright, patent, or trademark interest(s). > >>> Example pages might include the trademark usage guidelines page that > >>> Sun provides here: > >>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/trademark_faq/ > >> > >> Frankly, I think if we were to decide the community got to change the > >> pages regarding Sun's trademarks on opensolaris.org, they'd just be > >> moved to sun.com, and perhaps that isn't a bad thing anyway. > > > > I'm not so sure. I think legally, we have to have certain content on > > our website, and according to the charter and law, only Sun can > > control that content. > > We are not legally required to have any content on our website. > It could be completely blank, or contain 100% factual statements, > and not break any laws. > > Sun has certain policies that apply to its own websites. Those > policies only apply to opensolaris.org to the extent that the OGB > allows them to apply. Statements by Sun employees on our website > are no more (or less) owned by Sun than those same statements > on third-party sites (slashdot, apache, etc.) Statements about > Sun's ownership of trademarks belong on Sun's website -- the only > part that belongs on opensolaris.org are the disclaimers that > point to Sun's pages on some other site. Except for the fact that opensolaris.org contains a trademark and thus our usage of the domain itself is subject to Sun's requirements for usage of that trademark, correct? So, I think it would be very reasonable, as an example, for them to require certain documentation regarding the trademark on the website in exchange for usage of that trademark. -- 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
