On behalf of the Foundation Board, we're looking to see if there is any further documentation.
Stay tuned. On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:26:07PM -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > On 4/27/2015 10:42 AM, Jack Hill wrote: > > > > Is this agreement still secret? What work needs to be done to get it > > published? > > The Foundation Board will have to answer this question. > > The Gatekeepers have been operating on a gentleman's agreement for many > years. > > This agreement is not specific to OpenAFS. Other organizations > distributing products that implement the AFS protocol can enter into a > contract with IBM. Your File System, Inc. has done so to cover the > AuriStor File System. > > > Perhaps this is premature, but would OpenAFS consider chaining its name > > to avoid such restrictions? > > There is a very long thread from August/September 2012 on this mailing > list which touched on the pros and cons of doing so. In summary, the > only benefit to changing the name is if doing so permits implementing > something that cannot be done otherwise. The limiting factor on > implementing new functionality is not the terms of the AFS trademark > license. It is everything else. > > Jeffrey Altman > > -- ******************************** David William Botsch Programmer/Analyst @CNFComputing [email protected] ******************************** _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
