Shawn Walker writes:
> If no one disputes who owns it; then why are there disputes over its use?
I would have thought that this was obvious, but apparently it's not.
Nobody disputes that Sun is the owner of that trademark and thus has
the legal right to specify how it is to be used. That wasn't -- and
still isn't -- the issue.
The community, which obviously does not *own* the mark, has
nonetheless been using that mark to identify itself. It's in
virtually everything we do, including the identification of the two
separate mailing lists you've copied. Quite apart from Sun's
ownership of and control over the mark, the mark has value to the
community because of its use.
Thus, we walk right into several problems:
1. The hoped-for trademark policy, which was supposed to be
completed before Indiana went public with anything, has not been
completed. We've asked once again to have this, so we know what
the limits may be.
2. Regardless of the name attached to the community -- let's just
call it "Foo" to avoid the O-word -- the community has a clear
interest in things bearing its name and done in its name. A
"Foo Distribution" needs the support of the Foo community.
3. Whether there even _should be_ a single distribution identified
as the unique output of a given community is a community-wide
decision. It's not something that can be established by fiat,
because there are clearly other interests here -- including the
interests of those who worked on the distributions not chosen as
the single reference distribution, and the interests of the
projects that must now appeal to the reference distribution
project for inclusion.
None of those problems has been resolved by any community-wide action,
and yet we've got a web site that (as of right now) still proclaims
answers. That's why there is a dispute.
If you need an analogy to make it clear, suppose H.J. Heinz (who owns
the "Ketchup" trademark) decided that you couldn't use that mark if
you were talking about applying it to any other food item, and could
use it only for the familiar tomato-based stuff in a bottle with the
Heinz 57 logo. They could clearly do that -- they own the mark -- but
in doing so they'd alienate the customers. Nobody could offer
brand-name catsup with fries. You couldn't talk about having it on a
hotdog.
It'd be within their rights to proscribe usage that way, but certainly
not productive to do so. Similarly, Sun can place limits on the
"OpenSolaris" trademark. Some limits may make the community stronger,
but others might destroy it. To the extent that the OGB is involved
in pursuing the former and avoiding the latter, we'll attempt to have
a say in the matter. Having a say, though, doesn't mean that Sun
somehow "owns" the mark any less. They can still tell us to pound
sand.
> That is not to say that I believe that the community should not have
> input in it; but that they must remember that it is not theirs to own,
> support, finance, etc.
That's exactly it. There's no input at all. If we (the OGB) allow
this to stand, then I believe that the community does not have control
over its own future. That's a sad development, as it means that the
already maligned OGB has even less that it can legitimately do.
All that said, I don't see how annointing a benevolent ruler (of the
type you've requested) would necessarily address any of the problems
we've faced any better than the existing board does, or how it would
avoid the sorts of problems that clearly result from such a structure,
so, given that it sounds like a solution out looking for a problem,
I'd have to vote -1 on the proposal. (If it were an actual proposal
rather than just a talking point ...)
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
