[ogb-discuss] [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name

[Keith M Wesolowski]

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:14:15PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:

> Solaris is Solaris; OpenSolaris is a separate thing. To imply
> OpenSolaris is Solaris is a mistake no matter which distribution
> represents it. You also shouldn't make implications without claims. So
> far, Indiana has done nothing permanent that causes deviation from
> Solaris or OpenSolaris origins (unless stagnation matches your
> definition).

In thinking about the use of trademarks and how we express ourselves
as a community, it's important to remember that Solaris shaped, and
was shaped by, the professional values of a large number of engineers
who are now Members of our community.  It's worth trying to
distinguish the values we hold from the expression of those values in
the form of Solaris; they're deeply related but not exactly the same.

It is for us to decide how we express our values; it is up to Sun to
manage the image of Solaris.  That OpenSolaris (the word) is
considered a derivative of Solaris and therefore under Sun's control
is a potential sticking point, but it shouldn't distract us from
figuring out how we wish to present our own values as an engineering
community.

One of the values I believe every good engineer must hold is a
commitment to innovation, the willingness to try new things.  Whatever
we personally feel about the new things the Indiana team is trying,
their willingness to try is admirable.  That aspect should be captured
in the way we present ourselves.  When the project team offers its
work to the world under our name, we are also forced to evaluate their
new things against the rest of our values.  From what I've seen so far
I believe that this early prototype comes up well short.  But most
prototypes do - they're just prototypes.  It's up to all of us to take
this opportunity to think hard about what values we hold and how we're
going to present them to the public.  When this project team believes
it has a set of artifacts that are ready for formal release and
acceptance, we need to have an agreed-upon set of standards for
evaluating those artifacts against our values and deciding whether it
deserves to say it represents them.

I'm looking past the immediate firestorm here to the big picture.  I
haven't forgotten where we are today and I don't dispute the need for
carefully considered action to address it.  But it's helpful to think
about where we need to go.

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski		"Sir, we're surrounded!" 
FishWorks			"Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"