[advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM)

[Sara Dornsife]

Stephen Lau wrote:
> Brandorr wrote:
>   
>> Recently, there was a proposal expressed by Sun marketing to brand a
>> Solaris distribution currently referred to as "Project Indiana", as
>> "OpenSolaris".  This proposal also indicated that as far as software
>> product goes, "Indiana" would have exclusive rights to use the
>> "OpenSolaris" trademark.
>>   
>>     
> I don't believe that's true.  Derivative distributions would have the 
> right to use it in the context of saying they are "derived from", 
> "compatible with", "powered by", etc.   Sara can hopefully correct me here.
>   

Yes, that's true. In fact, by having a binary core for deriative 
distributions to base themselves on, the TM can actually be freed up 
quite a bit. The promise of quality, and perhaps compatibility, help to 
maintain the value of the brand. A distro based on the unmodified core 
could definitely choose to use "built on OpenSolaris" (my personal 
favorite). We could also create a logo program around it so that there 
is a graphical representation on their site or product. When working 
with just the code, there is no promise there and the brand could be 
diluted or harmed, which is what we have today. We are opening up 
possibilities.

>> Needless to say, this proposal has been met with mixed reviews, and is
>> "somewhat" controversial. On one side there are those that want to
>> rally behind one piece of software, and "unify" the "OpenSolaris"
>> world behind one distro. On the other side are those that believe
>> "OpenSolaris" should not be used for anything other than the
>> community, and the source code base (because OpenSolaris should not be
>> owned by or associated with any one thing).
>>   
>>     
> I don't believe the "other side" accurately reflects the view.  Most 
> people (including myself) who are opposed to something are opposed to 
> the idea of Sun, or one community (the Advocacy Community) unilaterally 
> making that decision without a broader vote, or input from the rest of 
> the OpenSolaris community at large.
>
> While initially I was opposed to the distribution being called 
> OpenSolaris, I understand the desire to do it, and I think there are a 
> lot of benefits to it.  I'm not opposed to it now *IF* the community at 
> large so desires or wills it.
>   

I'm glad to hear you've changed your mind. To me, this is a no-brainer. 
Keeping in mind that name only goes on the core OS, by combining and 
building with various other packages, distributions (which can now use 
the TM) can differentiate, target verticals, etc.

>> Now that I have given some background, I am going to propose a few
>> "OpenSolaris" uses that I think we can agree on:
>>
>> 1) The codebase hosted in mercurial @ OpenSolaris.org. As in "the
>> OpenSolaris code".
>>   
>>     
> Minor nit: the code is not necessarily hosted in Mercurial.  There are 
> many projects and consolidations with repositories that host in distinct 
> and disparate repositories that are both Subversion and Mercurial.  
> While ON uses Mercurial, other consolidations like JDS/GNOME use 
> Subversion.  Both are equally authoritative.
>   
>> 2) The community. Anybody who has a positive interest in current and
>> future uses of anything Solaris related, and self identifies
>> themselves as such. "the OpenSolaris community" IE: If you think you
>> are part of the OpenSolaris community then you are. (This was limited
>> to developers, but I think we can agree that the comunity has grown to
>> include many other type of community member).
>> 3) The core software. O/N (OS, and Networking). "The OpenSolaris
>> core". Note this does not need to include packaging tools.
>>   
>>     
> Hrm.  Can you elaborate?  Do you think this should only be allowed to 
> apply to ON?  Are other consolidations allowed to describe themselves as 
> "The OpenSolaris XXX"?  e.g. Would the GNOME/JDS consolidation be 
> allowed to describe themselves as "The OpenSolaris Desktop"?
>   
>> 4) Miniroot. "OpenSolaris miniroot"
>>   
>>     
> This seems very specific.  What's special about the miniroot that it 
> should be called out explicitly?
>   

Jim has outlined this very nicely in his updated FAQ.

>> Open questions (with my thoughts):
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> 1) Is there something smaller than O/N that can be referred to as
>> OpenSolaris? (I think at the very minimum, we should be able to have
>> the kernel be named OpenSolaris. As in the OpenSolaris kernel. (This
>> would not be limited to source or binary, nor would it be limited to
>> platform/arch.)
>>   
>>     
> What happens if you makes changes to the OpenSolaris kernel that render 
> it incompatible with other OpenSolaris kernels?  It's still 99% same 
> code, so clearly there is a direct lineage - but it also breaks 
> compatibility.  I think the whole desire around having "The OpenSolaris 
> Binary Distribution" is that it implies some sort of binary guarantee. 
>   
>> 2) How do we want to phrase the "binary application compatibility"
>> guarantee? (Or do we even allow this phrase.)
>> 3) How does something get certified as "compatible"? (with Solaris) (I
>> think we need to develop a test suite, that works by running a set of
>> binaries on the distro that wishes this certification. Please note
>> that this is not a Sun certification.)
>>   
>>     
> I like the idea of a canonical community developed test suite.  Perhaps 
> this is an idea to raise in the testing community. 
>   

I know that Jim Walker has been putting some thought into this.

>> 4) Do we want to establish a certification process for use of the term
>> "OpenSolaris" (IE: Whatever we decide as policy, does a group of
>> people need to sign off on uses, or will we basically trust people,
>> and rely on people to report perceived violations of policy.)
>>   
>>     
> OpenSolaris Standards Base?  ;-)
>
> Thanks for writing up your thoughts... definitely thought provoking.
>
> cheers,
> steve
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/attachments/20071022/2f52b000/attachment.html