From swalker at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 22 13:40:25 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:40:25 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47191503.50701@sun.com> <47191C39.2050506@Sun.Com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> Message-ID: On 22/10/2007, John Plocher wrote: > [Lets take this discussion over to the new branding alias: > trademark-policy-dev at openSolaris.org > Feel free to subscribe. > -John] > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > Unfortunately John, I can't agree with that. > > > > The problem is that users already have the expectation that clicking > > the "Download" button on OpenSolaris.org will let them download > > "OpenSolaris." > > But it doesn't /do/ that. Instead, it takes them to a page with half > a dozen distro choices, none of which are branded in any consistent > manner: *exactly* which is why I said, they "have the expectation" ... That's one of the big issues at the moment; we're not meeting user expectations. Instead of getting a nice big download link, they get a lot of text they don't want to read and nothing that is labeled OpenSolaris to download. > Distros using OpenSolaris Technology > ==================================== > PlocherModelTrain Appliance > ... Everyone's favourite ;) > > Every time there is a new SXDE/SXCE release, and the news gets posted > > to somewhere like OSNews, there are always a handful of comments from > > folks confused by the number of download choices, the differences > > between them, and why they can't download something that's called > > "OpenSolaris." > > Maybe we are exposing things at too fine a level - the confusion may > be because we DON'T YET have *a* release of anything - what we *do have* > are snapshots in time of a development process. Nobody has yet put > a stake in the ground and claimed to have a real product release, in > the sense of the ARC Release Taxonomy. No, the confusion is because we don't have anything labeled OpenSolaris. Of course, we don't have anything we *can* label OpenSolaris yet, since Solaris Express is more akin to Solaris than Open due to non-redistributable components, etc. > Think this thru for a moment, factoring in the asynchronous nature of > repositories. What does it mean to release a distro in such an environment? > There is "releasing the recipe", "obtaining the recipe and building a distro > out of it", "installing that distro", and "upgrading a system that has that > distro installed". > > Depending on *when* you do these actions, you will get different bits. > In the beginning when the recipe was created and the first distro > image was constructed, the bits were in a known state. This state > is shared with everyone who downloads and installs that particular > distro image. Those installed images will immediately begin to diverge > from the original distro bits as soon as the user does a pkg update from a > repository containing newer bits. The same goes for anyone who uses > the same recipe to recreate a distro image at a later date. > > Which of these is worthy of being called "a new release of ___"? > (I don't have an answer...) The technical differences between them and how repositories, etc. affect things doesn't really matter when users just want to click a "download" button. > > Despite our best efforts over the last few years it has become clear > > that users have made their choice about what they expect. > > and that would be? Well, if you read the posts by "folks out there" -- their expectation is to click a download "button" and get a "shiny new iso" that represents the OpenSolaris community in the form of a distribution. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From mb1x at gmx.com Mon Oct 22 14:24:13 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:24:13 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <5b5090780710191159o2470a0d2kf160ca807d31389c@mail.gmail.com> <4719054A.5000604@Sun.Com> <47191503.50701@sun.com> <47191C39.2050506@Sun.Com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> Hello there ... John Plocher wrote: > [Lets take this discussion over to the new branding alias: > trademark-policy-dev at openSolaris.org > Feel free to subscribe. > -John] > John, thanks for inviting me, I just subscribed. First I would like to say, that it isn't something like "whine whine, I feel MartUX comes too short" what has brought me to post to this thread earlier this day. And especially isn't it targeted against any single of the community members (kind regards to everyone, including Sara and Ian!). I just find the whole thing confusing (to myself, and then, what will a new user think, or even Linux biased parts of the press?). I think it can be done better, see John's excellent suggestions below. > Shawn Walker wrote: > >> Unfortunately John, I can't agree with that. >> >> The problem is that users already have the expectation that clicking >> the "Download" button on OpenSolaris.org will let them download >> "OpenSolaris." >> > > But it doesn't /do/ that. Instead, it takes them to a page with half > a dozen distro choices, none of which are branded in any consistent > manner: > > Solaris Express Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > OpenSolaris developers. It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source > and additional technology > Shouldn't that be have been called OpenSolaris Express, from 20050614 on ... ? > Solaris Express Developer Edition is Sun's tested release built > from the OpenSolaris bits and additional technology > Confusing, as the Developer Edition DVD also offers a classic SXCR boot/install option. Worse: The CD's also seem to offer both options at first, only to tell you later, that the CD version doesn't offer the "Developer" thing. Not to mention, that the "Developer" install ships with a version of SUNWspro that is not supported for building ON (has this changed, is it going to?) . Is that "Developer" thing actually available for SPARC? Is anybody calling this consistency? > BeleniX is a *NIX distribution that is built using the OpenSolaris > source base > > marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community > Release OpenSolaris distribution > Please: I have changed the spelling to MartUX, four months or so ago. Plus: There is also a x64/x86 version available for 13 months now. Full with 9.2GB (!) of clofi compressed CSW packages. I thought somebody would ever adjust the description. I had written to the general discuss list back then. It is actually the first x86 LiveDVD that had ever been released. Plus the first one (whether CD or DVD) capable of fully booting into a working Xorg on x64 in 64bit mode. I guess nobody except Ken Mays had ever given it a try. No wonder, as most people don't have a SPARC. So they won't open that link exclusively pointing to a "LiveCD for SPARC". Here it was, now completely outdated: http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/x86_and_x64/DVD/ It is the formerly planned mBE (MartUX Blastwave Edition). I have offered Blastwave n times to make something like a CSW community distro out of it. Every single CSW maintainer can find himself in /etc/release! But personal issues prevented that. > NexentaOS is ... built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime. > NexentaOS integrates OpenSolaris (SunOS kernel) ... > > SchilliX is an OpenSolaris based UNIX Live CD > > In truth, all of these should be branded similarly - they are all based > on OpenSolaris technology, because all of them have chosen to include > different sets of packages. Furthermore, since there is no attempt to > define "OpenSolaris" or claim baseline compatibility, it is misleading > to say that they are either OpenSolaris-based or OpenSolaris-Compatible. > Exactly. I agree in that some compatibility appcert-tool / document / program / project should be set up. To avoid missing lib - conflicts or incompatible lib versions. But basically all existing distros _are_ fully compatible to each other. > I would liketo see this download page eventually list ALL the various > distros, grouped by compatibility claims and sorted by release status > (releases, development in progress, ...): > > OpenSolaris Compatible Distros > ============================== > Indiana - Laptop Distro Prototype (November, 2006) > Indiana - Desktop/Laptop Distro (development in progress, currently at build 7 out of 16) > ... > > Add-on package repositories > =========================== > ........ > ........ (mirror) > > OpenSolaris Based Distros > ========================= > Solaris Developer Express (based on ON build 70) > Solaris Express (based on ON build 86) > Schillix 0.1.2.3 (based on ON build 86) > Nexenta 4.5.6 (based on ON build 85) > MarTux 0.3 (based on ON build 87) > ... > > Distros using OpenSolaris Technology > ==================================== > PlocherModelTrain Appliance > ... > > > I love that table. Something like this would make most sense to me. Of course strictly monitored, tested and documented. But I get the impression nobody at Sun has ever even tested my own x64/x86 bits from 2006, cannot speak for the other distros. Why not reviewing each new distro release and posting the results? Maybe a contest as potential tool to increase motivation for more involvement, better results? >> Every time there is a new SXDE/SXCE release, and the news gets posted >> to somewhere like OSNews, there are always a handful of comments from >> folks confused by the number of download choices, the differences >> between them, and why they can't download something that's called >> "OpenSolaris." >> > > Maybe we are exposing things at too fine a level - the confusion may > be because we DON'T YET have *a* release of anything - what we *do have* > are snapshots in time of a development process. Nobody has yet put > a stake in the ground and claimed to have a real product release, in > the sense of the ARC Release Taxonomy. > > Think this thru for a moment, factoring in the asynchronous nature of > repositories. What does it mean to release a distro in such an environment? > There is "releasing the recipe", "obtaining the recipe and building a distro > out of it", "installing that distro", and "upgrading a system that has that > distro installed". > > Depending on *when* you do these actions, you will get different bits. > In the beginning when the recipe was created and the first distro > image was constructed, the bits were in a known state. This state > is shared with everyone who downloads and installs that particular > distro image. Those installed images will immediately begin to diverge > >from the original distro bits as soon as the user does a pkg update from a > repository containing newer bits. The same goes for anyone who uses > the same recipe to recreate a distro image at a later date. > > Which of these is worthy of being called "a new release of ___"? > (I don't have an answer...) > > > >> Despite our best efforts over the last few years it has become clear >> that users have made their choice about what they expect. >> > > Best efforts: Please define. > and that would be? > > -John Something like an installable CSW-OpenSolaris? I bet on that. But I guess such an option has never been considered by Sun, I do remember claims about Blastwave's packaging not being "professional enough". No flames please. %martin p.s. I don't speak for any entity except for myself. I'm not affiliated with any organization, including Blastwave. From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 07:54:35 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:54:35 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> Message-ID: <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> [Moving over to trademark-policy-dev list...] Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: > This should be on the policy : default options should create > compliant things. > > But compliant to what ? POSIX, UNIX, RFC, OpenSolaris ? How about "compliant to Solaris 10" as a starting place? Any incompatibilities make life hell for ISVs and people producing binary packages intended to run on OpenSolaris. Note that all my "opensolaris compatible" branding suggestions are in terms of built the same way out of the same things, and not about passing some (nonexistent at this point) test suite... -John From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 23 07:58:03 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:58:03 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <471e0bfb.g8j/kP2uzbSCsrmC%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > [Moving over to trademark-policy-dev list...] > > Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: > > This should be on the policy : default options should create > > compliant things. > > > > But compliant to what ? POSIX, UNIX, RFC, OpenSolaris ? > > > How about "compliant to Solaris 10" as a starting place? If we are talking about the tar archive format, Solaris 10 would be a good gauge as Sun tar does not understand the non-POSIX GNU tar archive format. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 08:08:36 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:08:36 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" (was Re: Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro ) In-Reply-To: <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <4719054A.5000604@Sun.Com> <47191503.50701@sun.com> <47191C39.2050506@Sun.Com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710221250w53c9ac0fq5dafa7f871c25013@mail.gmail.com> <471D6304.2090809@sun.com> <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> Message-ID: <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: > one-click download experience ? What are we talking about ? Go look at http://rubyonrails.org/ http://www.ubuntu.com/ http://www.firefox.com/ http://wordpress.org/download/ and a host of other sites that obviously "get it". An easy to find download button that takes you to a page that clearly tells you what to do to successfully and easily get started with the program that sparked your interest. > Which distro should be automagically suggested ? Obviously, the one that this community feels is the best representitive of what we are doing. Since compatibility is a key value for us, it probably should be the distro that is the baseline definition for compatibility. Or, maybe, like I said earlier, the user is given a set of clear choices: The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at laptop users The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at server admins and my favorite, The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at Model Train Nuts. > and each time I want to download or talk about Sun distros, I > have a doubt Yup, this is part of our current "new user unfriendly" situation... > What would be the future of Solaris ? Not /our/ problem here in OpenSolaris land. > Where is exactly the issue ? I'm confused now. > OpenSolaris project could provide an "easy" one-click download > experience...this does not imply to decide which distro will own the > "OpenSolaris flag". Please go read and improve the [early, drafty, definitely will change significantly and frequently in the short term] trademark and branding policy we are working on. It is on the Genunix wiki: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 08:15:35 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:15:35 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <6b84b3530710230117y707eef27id9fb906159dc4708@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <6b84b3530710230117y707eef27id9fb906159dc4708@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471E1017.2070705@Sun.Com> ameya agnihotri wrote: > But will we be restricting innovation/creativity/freedom by being > bureaucratic ? IMHO, absolutely not. > What if much of the hard work goes into being compliant with standards > rather than doing different things? All we are saying is that, if you promise people that you are committed to keeping an interface stable between releases, that you need to uphold that promise. (isn't that what compatibility really boils down to?) If it is too much work to keep your promises, either don't make them in the first place, or go elsewhere; we don't want your kind here. Go ahead and innovate. Just do it in a way that doesn't force those of us who are not ready to follow along to change what already works for us today. Innovation does not mean it is OK to hack, slash and burn :-) -John From storycrafter at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 08:36:54 2007 From: storycrafter at gmail.com (Mark Martin) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:36:54 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <471E1017.2070705@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <6b84b3530710230117y707eef27id9fb906159dc4708@mail.gmail.com> <471E1017.2070705@Sun.Com> Message-ID: On 10/23/07, John Plocher wrote: > > All we are saying is that, if you promise people that you are > committed to keeping an interface stable between releases, that > you need to uphold that promise. (isn't that what compatibility > really boils down to?) If it is too much work to keep your > promises, either don't make them in the first place, or tongue in cheek> go elsewhere; we don't want your kind here. > > Go ahead and innovate. Just do it in a way that doesn't force > those of us who are not ready to follow along to change what > already works for us today. > > Innovation does not mean it is OK to hack, slash and burn :-) I am reminded of a certain popular BSD community that suffered fracture and political dissent. It begat a new *BSD with different goals, process, and leadership. Now that I'd want that kind of thing to happen to OpenSolaris (nor could it happen as easily with CDDL), but who could have forseen it? The second distribution's goals and concerns are certainly valid as that distribution now enjoys success and a large user base, and is widely known for strenuous security review of the code base and secure software in general. Honestly, I think there's such an emphasis on getting lots of adoption from non-technical folks to buy into the OpenSolaris "thing" that we're spending a lot of time and energy debating about whether there's a singular official distribution or not. Although I might disagree with the philosophy of the "One distribution to rule and to guide them", I'd rather take a look at who the target audience will be at this time. I'm not personally convinced it's the "newb's with laptops" in every case. Or even newb's period. Am I supposed to take it for granted that the early adopters will all be so non-technically savvy that they won't know how to make an informed choice? Aren't the early adopters, and therefore potential advocates, experienced sys-admins and developers and uber-geeks? Or is my impression of the target audience so askew that we have moved beyond early adoption and are now farther along the adoption curve? I'm willing to be wrong here -- I admit I'm not necessarily in touch with as many "customers" as many of you may be and my view may be blogospherical. Mark -- ------------------------------------------------------ Born to the false world, the wanderer, Storyteller, The Pied Piper On a quest for immortality Gathering a troop to find the fantasy -- Nightwish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brandorr at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 23 09:06:44 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:06:44 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" (was Re: Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro ) In-Reply-To: <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710221250w53c9ac0fq5dafa7f871c25013@mail.gmail.com> <471D6304.2090809@sun.com> <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/23/07, John Plocher wrote: > Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: > > one-click download experience ? What are we talking about ? > > Go look at > http://rubyonrails.org/ > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > http://www.firefox.com/ > http://wordpress.org/download/ > > and a host of other sites that obviously "get it". > > An easy to find download button that takes you to > a page that clearly tells you what to do to successfully > and easily get started with the program that sparked your > interest. > > > > Which distro should be automagically suggested ? > > Obviously, the one that this community feels is the best > representitive of what we are doing. Since compatibility > is a key value for us, it probably should be the distro that > is the baseline definition for compatibility. Or, maybe, > like I said earlier, the user is given a set of clear choices: > > The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at laptop users > > The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at server admins > > and my favorite, > > The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at Model Train Nuts. > > > and each time I want to download or talk about Sun distros, I > > have a doubt > > Yup, this is part of our current "new user unfriendly" situation... > > > What would be the future of Solaris ? > > Not /our/ problem here in OpenSolaris land. > > > Where is exactly the issue ? I'm confused now. > > OpenSolaris project could provide an "easy" one-click download > > experience...this does not imply to decide which distro will own the > > "OpenSolaris flag". > > > Please go read and improve the [early, drafty, definitely will change > significantly and frequently in the short term] trademark and branding > policy we are working on. It is on the Genunix wiki: > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline First comment. Unless I am reading things incorrectly, this policy seems to make it mandatory that anything wishing to use the OpenSolaris mark must use an Indiana Packaging System "recipe". -Brian > > > -John > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From mb1x at gmx.com Tue Oct 23 09:16:59 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:16:59 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <471e0bfb.g8j/kP2uzbSCsrmC%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> <471e0bfb.g8j/kP2uzbSCsrmC%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <471E1E7B.2030704@gmx.com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > > >> [Moving over to trademark-policy-dev list...] >> >> Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: >> >>> This should be on the policy : default options should create >>> compliant things. >>> >>> But compliant to what ? POSIX, UNIX, RFC, OpenSolaris ? >>> >> How about "compliant to Solaris 10" as a starting place? >> > > If we are talking about the tar archive format, Solaris 10 would be a > good gauge as Sun tar does not understand the non-POSIX GNU tar archive format. > > J?rg > So far, so good: But gnu-tar does also have some easily re-achievable / clonable advantages that may matter to the "default customer", who isn't necessarily the most experienced one. If you say, /usr/bin/tar shall never be replaced by gnu-tar, why is nobody working on bringing the positive usability aspects that gnu-tar _does_ feature to SVR4's tar? It is especially its built-in ability to deal with gzip compressed archives, what comes into mind. And why not going ahead and being better than gtar: By also adding other compression formats as well (i.e. bzip2)? Or are licenses preventing that. The infinite repetition of "gtar is not POSIX compliant" will not change customer behavior, anyways not beyond these few lists. -- %martin From Tim.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 09:23:46 2007 From: Tim.Foster at Sun.COM (Tim Foster) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:23:46 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" Message-ID: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> Hey all, I suggested this over on advocacy-discuss, but I wasn't sure if it had gotten lost in the noise, so I thought I'd reiterate. (and will happily shutup if this idea isn't feasible - apologies in advance for this wordy email) I've read the wiki at http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline and think the idea of "The OpenSolaris GNOME Laptop Distro", etc. is a bit too mechanical, and I'm not sure about the idea of community ratified distributions, which sound like an opportunity for a big intra-community fight to me. Following on from John's ideas about distros based on particular sets of recipes though, this was the suggestion: > #define DISTRO "Indiana" > #include "OpenSolaris-Core.recipe" > #include "Indiana-private-stuff.recipe" > #include "Indiana-cool-stuff.recipe" > #include "OpenSolaris-GNOME-Desktop.recipe" (and others) I'm wondering, what if we have this: #define DISTRO "OpenSolaris" #include "OpenSolaris-Core.recipe" EOF We'd have a *single* (yes, just one!) downloadable distro on opensolaris.org containing this OpenSolaris-Core.recipe, which would be called "OpenSolaris". It would have a reasonably rich feature set - similar to End User or Developer cluster in Solaris today, including a community-agreed X server, but perhaps without GNOME. Once people have downloaded this, they'd be able to package-add themselves (automatically based on them feeding a URL to the installer) to the definition of any of the other distributions. John mentioned the other sites that "get it", in terms of download-experience. Their advantage is, that most of them only have a single product. Perhaps we could argue that "Firefox + extensions" is analogous to "OpenSolaris + distro recipes" ? In terms of physical distribution, we could put this single distro on a CD or download site, and then bundle other recipes on the same CD/DVD/web/torrent, which could be pkg-added at install time, giving us the distro each user is after[1]. Other distro-specific websites (not opensolaris.org, at least not at the top-level, perhaps further down would be fine) could aggregate recipe components, and have a download that automatically pulls in a given version of OpenSolaris-core, and their own individual recipes. I agree with the thoughts on the wiki, that distros based on this core recipe, with no omissions should be branded as "Built on OpenSolaris". Distributions that take the above and minimise it, or otherwise replace components from the core recipe, could be branded as "contains some OpenSolaris technology" (or some such, my wording sucks I admit, but is "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" any better ? Could Firefox with embedded DTrace probes be seen as "Built with OpenSolaris Technology", clearly the addition of DTrace probes show that there's OpenSolaris technology in there, but Firefox isn't an operating system...) Does this make sense ? I realise the devil's in the details here, with respect to how seamless we can make this for the user. Is this idea just deferring the "Which distro do I install?" quesetion to install time ? Arguably, at that stage, we've already captured the user, so perhaps it's okay to download first, and ask questions later :-) cheers, tim [1] Of course the counter-argument, is that a CD that contains OpenSolaris + the Indiana recipe is essentially Indiana, right? -- Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops http://blogs.sun.com/timf From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 23 09:30:42 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:30:42 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <471E1E7B.2030704@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> <471e0bfb.g8j/kP2uzbSCsrmC%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <471E1E7B.2030704@gmx.com> Message-ID: <471e21b2.qexChcnEi2k14rCE%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Martin Bochnig wrote: > So far, so good: But gnu-tar does also have some easily re-achievable / > clonable advantages that may matter to the "default customer", who isn't > necessarily the most experienced one. > If you say, /usr/bin/tar shall never be replaced by gnu-tar, why is > nobody working on bringing the positive usability aspects that gnu-tar > _does_ feature to SVR4's tar? GNU tar cannot replace /usr/bin/tar star can... Tell me a single useful feature you know from GNU tar that is missing in star. > It is especially its built-in ability to deal with gzip compressed Available in star for a long time. > archives, what comes into mind. And why not going ahead and being better > than gtar: By also adding other compression formats as well (i.e. > bzip2)? Or are licenses preventing that. Available in star even longer than in GNU tar. > The infinite repetition of "gtar is not POSIX compliant" will not change > customer behavior, anyways not beyond these few lists. The infinite attempt to prevent star from replacing /usr/bin/tar will not help. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 09:40:11 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:40:11 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" (was Re: Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro ) In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710221250w53c9ac0fq5dafa7f871c25013@mail.gmail.com> <471D6304.2090809@sun.com> <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471E23EB.9020206@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: >> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline > > First comment. Unless I am reading things incorrectly, this policy > seems to make it mandatory that anything wishing to use the > OpenSolaris mark must use an Indiana Packaging System "recipe". It is a requirement of the trademark legal system that, if one wishes to have and protect a trademark that there needs to be some "quality control" associated with the use thereof. If there are no standards or expectations, then the mark can be so diluted that it becomes valueless and unenforceable. The use of recipes is my (and at this point, only mine) view of *a* way to encode this quality control. Other mechanisms might include passing conformance tests (which don't exist now) or even (gasp!) things that I haven't even considered :-) Don't like it? Think it is too narrow? Have a use-case for which it doesn't or can't work? Speak up and suggest a new metric - please! This is a *starting point* for discussion.... -John From mb1x at gmx.com Tue Oct 23 09:42:08 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:42:08 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <471e21b2.qexChcnEi2k14rCE%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> <471e0bfb.g8j/kP2uzbSCsrmC%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <471E1E7B.2030704@gmx.com> <471e21b2.qexChcnEi2k14rCE%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <471E2460.7020806@gmx.com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > The infinite attempt to prevent star from replacing /usr/bin/tar will not help. > > Joerg That's right. s-tools rule. -- %m From storycrafter at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 09:52:47 2007 From: storycrafter at gmail.com (Mark Martin) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:52:47 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> Message-ID: On 10/23/07, Tim Foster wrote: > > In terms of physical distribution, we could put this single distro on a > CD or download site, and then bundle other recipes on the same > CD/DVD/web/torrent, which could be pkg-added at install time, giving us > the distro each user is after[1]. Tim, I don't mean to go OT and I'm not addressing this necessarily to you, of course. I do agree with the majority of the rest of your email. It's not clear to me right now if Indiana or any other near-future distribution will be distrbuted via a mechanism that does not require me to get and maintain a Sun download account, and additionally doesn't prevent me from redistributing that ISO via other means like torrent, et al. I would prefer to able to get Indiana (or personally preferrable - KIndiana a.k.a"The OpenSolaris KDE Laptop Distro") via torrent and not suffer the week it took me to get SNV 73. Mark -- ------------------------------------------------------ Born to the false world, the wanderer, Storyteller, The Pied Piper On a quest for immortality Gathering a troop to find the fantasy -- Nightwish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 23 10:51:54 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:51:54 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" (was Re: Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro ) In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710221250w53c9ac0fq5dafa7f871c25013@mail.gmail.com> <471D6304.2090809@sun.com> <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 23/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > On 10/23/07, John Plocher wrote: > > Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: > > > one-click download experience ? What are we talking about ? > > > > Go look at > > http://rubyonrails.org/ > > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > > http://www.firefox.com/ > > http://wordpress.org/download/ > > > > and a host of other sites that obviously "get it". > > > > An easy to find download button that takes you to > > a page that clearly tells you what to do to successfully > > and easily get started with the program that sparked your > > interest. > > > > > > > Which distro should be automagically suggested ? > > > > Obviously, the one that this community feels is the best > > representitive of what we are doing. Since compatibility > > is a key value for us, it probably should be the distro that > > is the baseline definition for compatibility. Or, maybe, > > like I said earlier, the user is given a set of clear choices: > > > > The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at laptop users > > > > The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at server admins > > > > and my favorite, > > > > The OpenSolaris Distro aimed at Model Train Nuts. > > > > > and each time I want to download or talk about Sun distros, I > > > have a doubt > > > > Yup, this is part of our current "new user unfriendly" situation... > > > > > What would be the future of Solaris ? > > > > Not /our/ problem here in OpenSolaris land. > > > > > Where is exactly the issue ? I'm confused now. > > > OpenSolaris project could provide an "easy" one-click download > > > experience...this does not imply to decide which distro will own the > > > "OpenSolaris flag". > > > > > > Please go read and improve the [early, drafty, definitely will change > > significantly and frequently in the short term] trademark and branding > > policy we are working on. It is on the Genunix wiki: > > > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline > > First comment. Unless I am reading things incorrectly, this policy > seems to make it mandatory that anything wishing to use the > OpenSolaris mark must use an Indiana Packaging System "recipe". As John said, you're free to suggest something else. However, if one of the goals of branding is compatibility, then ensuring that the same packaging system is used is paramount. Otherwise, users end up with the mess we have on Linux right now where Debian packages won't install on rpm-based distributions, etc. Of course, there is the mess of rpm's not installing on rpm-based distributions, but I digress :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 11:41:53 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:41:53 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris (TM) In-Reply-To: <471e21b2.qexChcnEi2k14rCE%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <5b5090780710211510ne623a61p5b071b8824178066@mail.gmail.com> <471CCEB5.6070002@opensolaris.org> <56B32EBA-F511-4760-8E2C-6A0032DB7E47@unikservice.com> <471CD534.7070505@opensolaris.org> <6b84b3530710221135s51a7eb8ag13da684eb185e01e@mail.gmail.com> <471d2fa5.vsB4cEa9i73UiZIL%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4936E95F-CE14-408F-B7E0-D0AE2106D4D4@unikservice.com> <471E0B2B.1030306@Sun.Com> <471e0bfb.g8j/kP2uzbSCsrmC%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <471E1E7B.2030704@gmx.com> <471e21b2.qexChcnEi2k14rCE%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <471E4071.70306@Sun.Com> > ...web site design ... > ...star can... While these could be a fascinating discussions to follow up on, they really are getting off topic. Lets try to keep ourselves focused on the branding guidelines. What specifically are the things you feel that the brand should represent? What things should it not be used for? I took a stab on the wiki, but I didn't explain my own biases. So, here they are: I firmly believe that the brand name "OpenSolaris" is applicable to much more than a SINGLE distro. I want the brand to be a reliable indication of compatibility across various distros. I want us to enable multiple different "compatibility domains" that exhibit compatibility within their domain, but not necessarily across domains. The words I use for this vision are "laptop -vs- iPhone -vs- model train controller Distros"; feel free to pick different words :-) Example: If I have a web stack appliance that is OpenSolaris Web Appliance Compatible, then I know that it is comparable and compatible with other like-branded appliances. This helps when I want to deploy my applications for others to use. This implies that the repositories will be able to tell me what pkgs are compatible with my system... I also want to allow community artifacts (DTrace..) to be used by others, and for those others to identify with our community. I suggested that something like "my stuff is constructed out of some OpenSolaris stuff" may be a way to let them identify with us. Just as important as my desires are the things I *don't* want: I don't want distros within a domain to drift away from each other in incompatible ways (Runs on Ubuntu but not Redhat or Slackware is a disaster I would do anything to prevent here!) I don't want to force anyone out of our community just because of this branding discussion. We need to craft a policy that allows innovation and experimentation without excluding the results of such activities from using the OpenSolaris branding. -John From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 23 11:42:38 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:42:38 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> Message-ID: On 23/10/2007, Mark Martin wrote: > On 10/23/07, Tim Foster wrote: > > In terms of physical distribution, we could put this single distro on a > > CD or download site, and then bundle other recipes on the same > > CD/DVD/web/torrent, which could be pkg-added at install time, giving us > > the distro each user is after[1]. > > > Tim, > > I don't mean to go OT and I'm not addressing this necessarily to you, of > course. I do agree with the majority of the rest of your email. > > It's not clear to me right now if Indiana or any other near-future > distribution will be distrbuted via a mechanism that does not require me to > get and maintain a Sun download account, and additionally doesn't prevent me > from redistributing that ISO via other means like torrent, et al. I would > prefer to able to get Indiana (or personally preferrable - KIndiana a.k.a > "The OpenSolaris KDE Laptop Distro") via torrent and not suffer the week it > took me to get SNV 73. Let me clear that up then :) One of the primary goals of Indiana is to produce something that is *freely* redistributable. That means torrents, websites, pigeon ip protocol, sneaker net, etc. ;) No Sun download account required. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From Tim.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 11:50:14 2007 From: Tim.Foster at Sun.COM (Tim Foster) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:50:14 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> Message-ID: <1193165414.2082.2.camel@cranialtrauma> Hey Mark, On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mark Martin wrote: > On 10/23/07, Tim Foster wrote: > In terms of physical distribution, we could put this single > distro on a CD or download site, and then bundle other recipes > on the same CD/DVD/web/torrent, which could be pkg-added at > install time, giving us the distro each user is after[1]. > I don't mean to go OT and I'm not addressing this necessarily to you, > of course. I do agree with the majority of the rest of your email. No worries :-) > It's not clear to me right now if Indiana or any other near-future > distribution will be distrbuted via a mechanism that does not require > me to get and maintain a Sun download account I'm pretty sure the plan is to make Indiana totally redistributable - via web pages, torrents, passenger pigeons, etc - no Sun download account required. cheers, tim -- Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops http://blogs.sun.com/timf From brandorr at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 23 12:43:03 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:43:03 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" (was Re: Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro ) In-Reply-To: <471E23EB.9020206@Sun.Com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710221250w53c9ac0fq5dafa7f871c25013@mail.gmail.com> <471D6304.2090809@sun.com> <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> <471E23EB.9020206@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710231243v63e5b18fyb325699bddf92972@mail.gmail.com> On 10/23/07, John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > >> http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline > > > > First comment. Unless I am reading things incorrectly, this policy > > seems to make it mandatory that anything wishing to use the > > OpenSolaris mark must use an Indiana Packaging System "recipe". > > > It is a requirement of the trademark legal system that, if one wishes to > have and protect a trademark that there needs to be some "quality control" > associated with the use thereof. If there are no standards or expectations, > then the mark can be so diluted that it becomes valueless and unenforceable. I think you are conflating legally protecting a trademark, with corporate branding strategies. All that is required for Trademark protection is that third party users of the trademark obtain a license from the trademark holder, and the trademark holder makes efforts to stop unauthorized uses of the mark. Since Sun has registered half a dozen OpenSolaris trademarks, pretty much covering the gamut of goods and services, from anything computer hardware (or software) related, to practically anything business related, any use of OpenSolaris you are likely to conceive of is covered. Theoretically someone could make a Linux distro, obtain an OpenSolaris trademark license from Sun, and legally label it OpenSolaris. This would in no way cause risk to the OpenSolaris trademarks that Sun holds. (This also applies to flash drives, telephones, pdas, hard drives, VCRs, answering machines, etc...) Clearly this example is an absurdity, and I am merely giving it as an example of the flexibility Sun has for use of the trademark. Because of this, I think one thing we should defiantly create a sign off/registration process for use of the trademark. The policy that this project is working will make it easier to streamline the registration process, but for legal reasons we should require licensees to file for license anyhow. (Thus allowing us to keep a database of authorized users of the mark). > The use of recipes is my (and at this point, only mine) view of *a* way > to encode this quality control. Other mechanisms might include passing > conformance tests (which don't exist now) or even (gasp!) things that I > haven't even considered :-) > > Don't like it? Think it is too narrow? Have a use-case for which it > doesn't or can't work? Speak up and suggest a new metric - please! > This is a *starting point* for discussion.... Now that we have reset our understanding of US trademark law, let us move on to discussing the the brand we want to create. We should start by establishing the lowest common denominator that anyone in the community could wish to use the OpenSolaris mark. (Basically I feel as a starting point for the discussion, try to establish the most liberal uses of the OpenSolaris that anyone realistically would want to use. Once we have established that, we can tighten it up further.) Below, I have listed a few to start the discussion: Business cards: I would say that contributors should be able to print licensed business cards, that represent their community affiliation. (But maybe can't advertise businesses). Hats, tees, keychains, bags and other promotional materials: we should have a liberal license policy with a short length of license. Liberal to get the word out. Short term of license, is because we may wish to tighten this in the future as we may in the future need merchandising revenue to help raise funds for an OpenSolaris foundation. I have been avoiding this topic, as it is a completely separate discussion but I we need to address this soon). Devices: Anything that's made from our source code, that includes the kernel. This would include OpenSolaris phones, embedded OpenSolaris routers, OpenSolaris fileserver appliances, and OpenSolaris. Distros/OSes x86: The $10,000 question is whether or not we require the licensee guarantee that their products will be fully backward compatible with Sun's Solaris. Being that x86 only really hit it's stride in Solaris 10, I would consider S10 the furthest backward compatibility one could require. (If we decide we want to require this). Also, assuming that anything that contains the whole of Indiana, is still Indiana, then we only have to worry about products that are source code derivatives. I am thinking that if a source code licensee wishes to make a product called OpenSolaris, they must either pay to have their product run through a compatibility testing suite, or provide the human resources to do so. The question regarding whether the product certified actually has to use OpenSolaris code is an interesting one, that is probably a separate thread of discussion altogether. (IE: can Linux/BSD come out with their own version of Branded zones, and call them "OpenSolaris Jails" if they can pass a compatibility test.) Distros/OSes Sparc: Here I would consider backwards compatibility to Solaris 2.1 a must. I think a test suite is the way to go here, but I would like to hear how Sun can make this guarantee today. Distros/OSes z-series mainframe: I don't know the answer here. I think that it really depends. Distros/OSes PowerPC: I don't know the answer here. I think we can be a bit liberal here, as in "based on the kernel code, userspace can change." Distros/OSes ARM/MIPS/Embedded: I don't know the answer here. But I think we can be a bit liberal here, as in based on the kernel code, userspace can change. Businesses: ?? Consulting and Resellers, do we allow someone to put OpenSolaris consultant(s) on their business card? Do we allow someone to sell a server called, Kell Model OS342 OpenSolaris server? If so what are the requirements. Organization names: Usergroups, Foundations, tradeshow groups, etc. Courses: Do we restrict who or how people or organizations can offer OpenSolaris training? General: Should we should reserve the right to revoke trademark licenses for any reason, specified or not? Also, should we reserve the right to refuse to grant licenses for unspecified reasons? Cheers, Brian > -John -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From mb1x at gmx.com Tue Oct 23 13:54:05 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:54:05 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <5b5090780710191159o2470a0d2kf160ca807d31389c@mail.gmail.com> <4719054A.5000604@Sun.Com> <47191503.50701@sun.com> <47191C39.2050506@Sun.Com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> Message-ID: <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> Please count me out of that brand related discussion. I didn't get any of my questions or suggestions answered or commented, including my offer to do something for SPARC-Indiana. Rather the opposite: From that point on nobody even mentioned me anymore. In order to enjoy a monologue, I don't need to type that stuff in and send it around the world. Thank you. p.s. the link on *http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ is still pointing to "marTux* ? Download | More Info marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community Release OpenSolaris distribution for SPARC (sun4u for now, sun4v later)." Martin Bochnig wrote: > Hello there ... > > John Plocher wrote: > >> [Lets take this discussion over to the new branding alias: >> trademark-policy-dev at openSolaris.org >> Feel free to subscribe. >> -John] >> >> > > John, thanks for inviting me, I just subscribed. > First I would like to say, that it isn't something like "whine whine, I > feel MartUX comes too short" what has brought me to post to this thread > earlier this day. And especially isn't it targeted against any single of > the community members (kind regards to everyone, including Sara and Ian!). > I just find the whole thing confusing (to myself, and then, what will a > new user think, or even Linux biased parts of the press?). > I think it can be done better, see John's excellent suggestions below. > > > >> Shawn Walker wrote: >> >> >>> Unfortunately John, I can't agree with that. >>> >>> The problem is that users already have the expectation that clicking >>> the "Download" button on OpenSolaris.org will let them download >>> "OpenSolaris." >>> >>> >> But it doesn't /do/ that. Instead, it takes them to a page with half >> a dozen distro choices, none of which are branded in any consistent >> manner: >> >> Solaris Express Community Edition is Sun's binary release for >> OpenSolaris developers. It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source >> and additional technology >> >> > > Shouldn't that be have been called OpenSolaris Express, from 20050614 on > ... ? > > >> Solaris Express Developer Edition is Sun's tested release built >> from the OpenSolaris bits and additional technology >> >> > > Confusing, as the Developer Edition DVD also offers a classic SXCR > boot/install option. > Worse: The CD's also seem to offer both options at first, only to tell > you later, that the CD version doesn't offer the "Developer" thing. > Not to mention, that the "Developer" install ships with a version of > SUNWspro that is not supported for building ON (has this changed, is it > going to?) . Is that "Developer" thing actually available for SPARC? > > Is anybody calling this consistency? > > >> BeleniX is a *NIX distribution that is built using the OpenSolaris >> source base >> >> marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community >> Release OpenSolaris distribution >> >> > > Please: I have changed the spelling to MartUX, four months or so ago. > Plus: There is also a x64/x86 version available for 13 months now. Full > with 9.2GB (!) of clofi compressed CSW packages. I thought somebody > would ever adjust the description. I had written to the general discuss > list back then. It is actually the first x86 LiveDVD that had ever been > released. Plus the first one (whether CD or DVD) capable of fully > booting into a working Xorg on x64 in 64bit mode. > I guess nobody except Ken Mays had ever given it a try. No wonder, as > most people don't have a SPARC. So they won't open that link exclusively > pointing to a "LiveCD for SPARC". > Here it was, now completely outdated: > http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/x86_and_x64/DVD/ > It is the formerly planned mBE (MartUX Blastwave Edition). > I have offered Blastwave n times to make something like a CSW community > distro out of it. Every single CSW maintainer can find himself in > /etc/release! But personal issues prevented that. > > >> NexentaOS is ... built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime. >> NexentaOS integrates OpenSolaris (SunOS kernel) ... >> >> SchilliX is an OpenSolaris based UNIX Live CD >> >> In truth, all of these should be branded similarly - they are all based >> on OpenSolaris technology, because all of them have chosen to include >> different sets of packages. Furthermore, since there is no attempt to >> define "OpenSolaris" or claim baseline compatibility, it is misleading >> to say that they are either OpenSolaris-based or OpenSolaris-Compatible. >> >> > > Exactly. > I agree in that some compatibility appcert-tool / document / program / > project should be set up. To avoid missing lib - conflicts or > incompatible lib versions. But basically all existing distros _are_ > fully compatible to each other. > > > >> I would liketo see this download page eventually list ALL the various >> distros, grouped by compatibility claims and sorted by release status >> (releases, development in progress, ...): >> >> OpenSolaris Compatible Distros >> ============================== >> Indiana - Laptop Distro Prototype (November, 2006) >> Indiana - Desktop/Laptop Distro (development in progress, currently at build 7 out of 16) >> ... >> >> Add-on package repositories >> =========================== >> ........ >> ........ (mirror) >> >> OpenSolaris Based Distros >> ========================= >> Solaris Developer Express (based on ON build 70) >> Solaris Express (based on ON build 86) >> Schillix 0.1.2.3 (based on ON build 86) >> Nexenta 4.5.6 (based on ON build 85) >> MarTux 0.3 (based on ON build 87) >> ... >> >> Distros using OpenSolaris Technology >> ==================================== >> PlocherModelTrain Appliance >> ... >> >> >> >> > > > I love that table. > Something like this would make most sense to me. > Of course strictly monitored, tested and documented. > But I get the impression nobody at Sun has ever even tested my own > x64/x86 bits from 2006, cannot speak for the other distros. > Why not reviewing each new distro release and posting the results? Maybe > a contest as potential tool to increase motivation for more involvement, > better results? > > > > >>> Every time there is a new SXDE/SXCE release, and the news gets posted >>> to somewhere like OSNews, there are always a handful of comments from >>> folks confused by the number of download choices, the differences >>> between them, and why they can't download something that's called >>> "OpenSolaris." >>> >>> >> Maybe we are exposing things at too fine a level - the confusion may >> be because we DON'T YET have *a* release of anything - what we *do have* >> are snapshots in time of a development process. Nobody has yet put >> a stake in the ground and claimed to have a real product release, in >> the sense of the ARC Release Taxonomy. >> >> Think this thru for a moment, factoring in the asynchronous nature of >> repositories. What does it mean to release a distro in such an environment? >> There is "releasing the recipe", "obtaining the recipe and building a distro >> out of it", "installing that distro", and "upgrading a system that has that >> distro installed". >> >> Depending on *when* you do these actions, you will get different bits. >> In the beginning when the recipe was created and the first distro >> image was constructed, the bits were in a known state. This state >> is shared with everyone who downloads and installs that particular >> distro image. Those installed images will immediately begin to diverge >> >from the original distro bits as soon as the user does a pkg update from a >> repository containing newer bits. The same goes for anyone who uses >> the same recipe to recreate a distro image at a later date. >> >> Which of these is worthy of being called "a new release of ___"? >> (I don't have an answer...) >> >> >> >> >>> Despite our best efforts over the last few years it has become clear >>> that users have made their choice about what they expect. >>> >>> >> >> > > Best efforts: Please define. > > > >> and that would be? >> >> -John >> > > Something like an installable CSW-OpenSolaris? > I bet on that. But I guess such an option has never been considered by > Sun, I do remember claims about Blastwave's packaging not being > "professional enough". > > No flames please. > > %martin > > p.s. I don't speak for any entity except for myself. I'm not affiliated > with any organization, including Blastwave. > > > From brandorr at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 23 14:29:24 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:29:24 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> Martin, this is the wrong list to get website changes implemented.. Please subscribe to website-discuss, and send an email to that list. (Derek, and Alan are the people that you need to be contacting). Cheers, Brian On 10/23/07, Martin Bochnig wrote: > Please count me out of that brand related discussion. > I didn't get any of my questions or suggestions answered or commented, > including my offer to do something for SPARC-Indiana. Rather the > opposite: From that point on nobody even mentioned me anymore. > > In order to enjoy a monologue, I don't need to type that stuff in and > send it around the world. > > > Thank you. > p.s. the link on *http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ is still pointing to > > "marTux* ? Download | More Info > > > marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community > Release OpenSolaris distribution for SPARC (sun4u for now, sun4v > later)." > > > > > Martin Bochnig wrote: > > Hello there ... > > > > John Plocher wrote: > > > >> [Lets take this discussion over to the new branding alias: > >> trademark-policy-dev at openSolaris.org > >> Feel free to subscribe. > >> -John] > >> > >> > > > > John, thanks for inviting me, I just subscribed. > > First I would like to say, that it isn't something like "whine whine, I > > feel MartUX comes too short" what has brought me to post to this thread > > earlier this day. And especially isn't it targeted against any single of > > the community members (kind regards to everyone, including Sara and Ian!). > > I just find the whole thing confusing (to myself, and then, what will a > > new user think, or even Linux biased parts of the press?). > > I think it can be done better, see John's excellent suggestions below. > > > > > > > >> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Unfortunately John, I can't agree with that. > >>> > >>> The problem is that users already have the expectation that clicking > >>> the "Download" button on OpenSolaris.org will let them download > >>> "OpenSolaris." > >>> > >>> > >> But it doesn't /do/ that. Instead, it takes them to a page with half > >> a dozen distro choices, none of which are branded in any consistent > >> manner: > >> > >> Solaris Express Community Edition is Sun's binary release for > >> OpenSolaris developers. It is built from the latest OpenSolaris source > >> and additional technology > >> > >> > > > > Shouldn't that be have been called OpenSolaris Express, from 20050614 on > > ... ? > > > > > >> Solaris Express Developer Edition is Sun's tested release built > >> from the OpenSolaris bits and additional technology > >> > >> > > > > Confusing, as the Developer Edition DVD also offers a classic SXCR > > boot/install option. > > Worse: The CD's also seem to offer both options at first, only to tell > > you later, that the CD version doesn't offer the "Developer" thing. > > Not to mention, that the "Developer" install ships with a version of > > SUNWspro that is not supported for building ON (has this changed, is it > > going to?) . Is that "Developer" thing actually available for SPARC? > > > > Is anybody calling this consistency? > > > > > >> BeleniX is a *NIX distribution that is built using the OpenSolaris > >> source base > >> > >> marTux is the first non-Solaris Express/Solaris Express Community > >> Release OpenSolaris distribution > >> > >> > > > > Please: I have changed the spelling to MartUX, four months or so ago. > > Plus: There is also a x64/x86 version available for 13 months now. Full > > with 9.2GB (!) of clofi compressed CSW packages. I thought somebody > > would ever adjust the description. I had written to the general discuss > > list back then. It is actually the first x86 LiveDVD that had ever been > > released. Plus the first one (whether CD or DVD) capable of fully > > booting into a working Xorg on x64 in 64bit mode. > > I guess nobody except Ken Mays had ever given it a try. No wonder, as > > most people don't have a SPARC. So they won't open that link exclusively > > pointing to a "LiveCD for SPARC". > > Here it was, now completely outdated: > > http://www.martux.org/RELEASES/x86_and_x64/DVD/ > > It is the formerly planned mBE (MartUX Blastwave Edition). > > I have offered Blastwave n times to make something like a CSW community > > distro out of it. Every single CSW maintainer can find himself in > > /etc/release! But personal issues prevented that. > > > > > >> NexentaOS is ... built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime. > >> NexentaOS integrates OpenSolaris (SunOS kernel) ... > >> > >> SchilliX is an OpenSolaris based UNIX Live CD > >> > >> In truth, all of these should be branded similarly - they are all based > >> on OpenSolaris technology, because all of them have chosen to include > >> different sets of packages. Furthermore, since there is no attempt to > >> define "OpenSolaris" or claim baseline compatibility, it is misleading > >> to say that they are either OpenSolaris-based or OpenSolaris-Compatible. > >> > >> > > > > Exactly. > > I agree in that some compatibility appcert-tool / document / program / > > project should be set up. To avoid missing lib - conflicts or > > incompatible lib versions. But basically all existing distros _are_ > > fully compatible to each other. > > > > > > > >> I would liketo see this download page eventually list ALL the various > >> distros, grouped by compatibility claims and sorted by release status > >> (releases, development in progress, ...): > >> > >> OpenSolaris Compatible Distros > >> ============================== > >> Indiana - Laptop Distro Prototype (November, 2006) > >> Indiana - Desktop/Laptop Distro (development in progress, currently at build 7 out of 16) > >> ... > >> > >> Add-on package repositories > >> =========================== > >> ........ > >> ........ (mirror) > >> > >> OpenSolaris Based Distros > >> ========================= > >> Solaris Developer Express (based on ON build 70) > >> Solaris Express (based on ON build 86) > >> Schillix 0.1.2.3 (based on ON build 86) > >> Nexenta 4.5.6 (based on ON build 85) > >> MarTux 0.3 (based on ON build 87) > >> ... > >> > >> Distros using OpenSolaris Technology > >> ==================================== > >> PlocherModelTrain Appliance > >> ... > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > I love that table. > > Something like this would make most sense to me. > > Of course strictly monitored, tested and documented. > > But I get the impression nobody at Sun has ever even tested my own > > x64/x86 bits from 2006, cannot speak for the other distros. > > Why not reviewing each new distro release and posting the results? Maybe > > a contest as potential tool to increase motivation for more involvement, > > better results? > > > > > > > > > >>> Every time there is a new SXDE/SXCE release, and the news gets posted > >>> to somewhere like OSNews, there are always a handful of comments from > >>> folks confused by the number of download choices, the differences > >>> between them, and why they can't download something that's called > >>> "OpenSolaris." > >>> > >>> > >> Maybe we are exposing things at too fine a level - the confusion may > >> be because we DON'T YET have *a* release of anything - what we *do have* > >> are snapshots in time of a development process. Nobody has yet put > >> a stake in the ground and claimed to have a real product release, in > >> the sense of the ARC Release Taxonomy. > >> > >> Think this thru for a moment, factoring in the asynchronous nature of > >> repositories. What does it mean to release a distro in such an environment? > >> There is "releasing the recipe", "obtaining the recipe and building a distro > >> out of it", "installing that distro", and "upgrading a system that has that > >> distro installed". > >> > >> Depending on *when* you do these actions, you will get different bits. > >> In the beginning when the recipe was created and the first distro > >> image was constructed, the bits were in a known state. This state > >> is shared with everyone who downloads and installs that particular > >> distro image. Those installed images will immediately begin to diverge > >> >from the original distro bits as soon as the user does a pkg update from a > >> repository containing newer bits. The same goes for anyone who uses > >> the same recipe to recreate a distro image at a later date. > >> > >> Which of these is worthy of being called "a new release of ___"? > >> (I don't have an answer...) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Despite our best efforts over the last few years it has become clear > >>> that users have made their choice about what they expect. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > Best efforts: Please define. > > > > > > > >> and that would be? > >> > >> -John > >> > > > > Something like an installable CSW-OpenSolaris? > > I bet on that. But I guess such an option has never been considered by > > Sun, I do remember claims about Blastwave's packaging not being > > "professional enough". > > > > No flames please. > > > > %martin > > > > p.s. I don't speak for any entity except for myself. I'm not affiliated > > with any organization, including Blastwave. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 16:28:45 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:28:45 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" (was Re: Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro ) In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710231243v63e5b18fyb325699bddf92972@mail.gmail.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710221250w53c9ac0fq5dafa7f871c25013@mail.gmail.com> <471D6304.2090809@sun.com> <0E5C7860-2239-445A-B422-1B4D859B89BF@unikservice.com> <471E0E74.1060006@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710230906o892b0c7o724c0302edba475a@mail.gmail.com> <471E23EB.9020206@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710231243v63e5b18fyb325699bddf92972@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471E83AD.8070503@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > On 10/23/07, John Plocher wrote: > I think you are conflating legally protecting a trademark, with > corporate branding strategies. You are right - of course :-) Too many conversations with too many people on topics that blurr together - trademark, branding, PR... > We should start by establishing the lowest common denominator that > anyone in the community could wish to use the OpenSolaris mark. TimF suggested that the Core set of functionality that enables compatibility across distros be called OpenSolaris. In addition, Sara noted that my example marks were way too wordy (duh, thats why I'm not in Marketing :-), and suggested simpler phrases. Running with these suggestions (and with a pair of scissors, just to make life interesting :-), I've got: Potential guideline: Compatibility is at the core of the OpenSolaris brand. The trademark OpenSolaris applies to a core[1] set of functionality that is required to exist in a distro. If your distro contains this unmodified functionality, and passes the OpenSolaris Compatibility test[2], then it is allowed to use the OpenSolaris trademark. Examples: OpenSolaris - for a distro containing only the Core Belinix OpenSolaris, Indiana OpenSolaris, ... - for distros that are supersets of the unmodified Core [One trick of good meeting facilitators and parliamentarians is to table issues that can't easily and quickly be resolved. The dreaded "6-Sigma" regime used the term "Parking Lot" for such things - a term which I'm adopting here] Parking lot item #1: Define Core We need to define what is in this Core. We don't need the definition right now, but we will before we can actually use the mark on a distro. For our immediate need, assume that this Core is less than all of Solaris10, and more than simply ON+bootloader+shell. Need to deal with edge cases such as "x64 doesn't use SPARC OpenBoot, PowerPC uses different/modified low level kernel files", yet all should be able to be in the Core Parking lot item #2: Define Compatibility Test Suite As above, presume that this is something like "did you build it with the Core recipe using the official OpenSolaris packages?", but with actual for the actual behaviors. > Devices: Anything that's made from our source code, that includes the > kernel. This would include OpenSolaris phones, embedded OpenSolaris > routers, OpenSolaris fileserver appliances, and OpenSolaris. OK, the above may work for server distros, but what about devices and appliances? Where does Brian's OpenSolaris Phone come in? In talking with Sara, she raised the question of whether or not there would be multiple distros for a particular device, and if so, would one expect compatibility between them? What about across appliances (fileserver, webserver, router...) It seems reasonable to assume that if there were some sort of "appliance Core" definition and compatibility test suite, then some sort of trademark usage policy could be formulated. I'm not sure we need to define it now, or if we could wait until we actually had a real appliance distro to playtest things with... "OpenSolaris Phones", anyone? Parking lot item #3: Need guidelines for device and appliance usage of the OpenSolaris mark. I'm not at all sure where clothing and stationary comes into this discussion, but it would be good for a trademark usage policy to address them. Parking lot item #4: What about Business cards, T-Shirts and other enthusiast usage? > Distros/OSes x86: The $10,000 question is whether or not we require > the licensee guarantee that their products will be fully backward > compatible with Sun's Solaris. See above. I don't know what we will end up with here, but I tend to agree with you. I just want to stay away from dangerous assumptions that imply a greater degree of agreement than we actually have. Examples of two such dangerous assumptions are: This Core will be the exact same thing as Solaris10, and This Core will be the exact same thing as Indiana > I am thinking that if a source code > licensee wishes to make a product called OpenSolaris, they must either > pay to have their product run through a compatibility testing suite, > or provide the human resources to do so. The question regarding I'm not quite sure what a "source code licensee" would be in an FOSS world. As for doing the tests, why not treat them like we do benchmarks - the tests are freely available, you are expected to run them yourself and truthfully (ha!) report the results. Since anyone else could rerun the tests, verification could be done by anyone - maybe even as a part of the core packages itself (stealing an idea from things like perl that make passing a test suite part of the install sequence) > whether the product certified actually has to use OpenSolaris code is > an interesting one, that is probably a separate thread of discussion > altogether. (IE: can Linux/BSD come out with their own version of > Branded zones, and call them "OpenSolaris Jails" if they can pass a > compatibility test.) I think that the intent of the branding is a combination of "uses our stuff" and "provides for compatibility". Since I don't have great faith in test suites actually proving anything, I'm not sure I'd like to go down that path - except to note that this is the basis for Open Systems; that anyone could implement to an Open Spec and so not be reliant on proprietary systems... > Distros/OSes Sparc: Here I would consider backwards compatibility to > Solaris 2.1 a must. Why? Sun doesn't. You won't find FNS, RFS, XNeWS, SunView and a whole raft of SunOS 5.1-isms in the latest SunOS 5.10 - why would you want them in OpenSolaris? [*] Furthermore, some of the stuff that /is/ in Solaris10 really needs to be able to change irregardless of past behavior (I'm thinking of getting a reasonable shell, fixing tar, ...) Finally, having x64 and SPARC be different would be a disaster on many fronts. __ [*]Ding! - see, I used the term as a singular noun and lightning didn't strike me! > Organization names: Usergroups, Foundations, tradeshow groups, etc. > > Courses: Do we restrict who or how people or organizations can offer > OpenSolaris training? Parking lot item #5: What about Usergroups, Foundations, tradeshow groups, training and consultants? -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 16:55:43 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:55:43 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> Message-ID: <471E89FF.70300@Sun.Com> Tim Foster wrote: > I'm wondering, what if we have this: > > #define DISTRO "OpenSolaris" > #include "OpenSolaris-Core.recipe" > EOF > > We'd have a *single* (yes, just one!) downloadable distro on > opensolaris.org containing this OpenSolaris-Core.recipe, which would be > called "OpenSolaris". I thought this as well - but some comments on the list twinged on the idea that "Indiana may be too fat". This got me thinking that we need a lower-footprint Core that Indiana and others would build upon. Restating and agreeing with your (unquoted) thoughts: It sounds like there may well be a place for a simple "bootstrap distro" that is easy and fast to download/install, and once running, lets the user easily extend their system by choosing from a list of recipe bundles, recipes and packages... But. There will be other baselines that are just as interesting: Appliance Distros Distros for other architectures Distros of stuff that is not an OS (middleware and apps...) ... etc ... Reserving the OpenSolaris branding for use by only the OS distros (and forbidding its use by these others...) would seem to be an undesirable thing to do. Maybe this is just a request that the branding guidelines contain a mechanism for future efforts to define such things. > John mentioned the other sites that "get it", in terms of > download-experience. Their advantage is, that most of them only have a > single product. The ""typical"" user-path for software seems to be It catches their attention somehow They go to the website (google("it")) They look for two things: A quick, splashy and interesting overview that gives a good description of what "it" is. A Download and start using "it" button. After deciding (from the intro) that they really want "it", they download and install "it" They run "it" and kick the tires. If it doesn't suck, they start looking to see how they can extend, customize and personalize "it" This fits for wordpress and firefox in the same way it fits OpenSolaris, except that there is more choice involved at the "Download it" step. It would be a good idea to have a more definite list of what these choices might be - if it turns out that all our postulated scenarios really collapse into the "Core Distro" Tim suggests, then maybe we are making a mountain out of a molehill. > (or some such, my wording sucks I admit, but is "Built with > OpenSolaris Technology" any better ? Probably not - my wording sucks more than your wording!!! :-) > Could Firefox with embedded DTrace > probes be seen as "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" Why not? (is there a reason to not let them do so?) > [1] Of course the counter-argument, is that a CD that contains > OpenSolaris + the Indiana recipe is essentially Indiana, right? Yup. Just as a CD that contains OpenSolaris + the Belinix recipe is essentially Belinix... I would hope that the default installer would make it easy to go down different paths - if the user is presented with a screen: (*) Install Indiana - default ( ) Go play with model trains ( ) Custom Install [OK] [Cancel] then I'd be happy :-) -John From mb1x at gmx.com Tue Oct 23 17:56:31 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:56:31 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> Brandorr wrote: > Martin, this is the wrong list to get website changes implemented.. > > Please subscribe to website-discuss, and send an email to that list. > (Derek, and Alan are the people that you need to be contacting). > > Cheers, > Brian Brian, #0.) I had stated a number of different things during the last 30 hours, in several emails (i.e. confusing branding in general, inconsistency wherever you look [i.e. "Developer Edition" versus CD versus SXCR versus SPARC], inability of the "Developer Edition"-bundled SUNWspro to successfully build ON, "opensolaris" as common term versus as brand for one "selected" binary "reference distro", Marketing, gdm vs. dtlogin, offer2work_on_SPARC-Indiana, proposal for a distro competition contest, request for somebody to review each new distro release and document stuff, proposal of having more WM's shipping as part of SXCR / having them integrated into dtlogin / later gdm, reiterating the need for an immediate replacement of /usr/bin/tar (with star) #1.) What you are calling a (minor) website issue: A corporate attitude where nobody feels responsible for anything beyond his desk's end, is a bad attitude Sunnies!). I never had to contact any list to set those links up. Nobody ever contacted me regarding a review of those links. Now they are producing FUD for over a year. It costs me time to write in a foreign language. But is my English all that bad? Does nobody understand (or take the time to read) what I would like to express? What else is preventing folks from answering my questions? A hundred people have stated they wanna discuss. Is it only sunshine-weather they would like to discuss about? Cheers, Martin From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 23 18:13:12 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:13:12 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> Message-ID: <471E9C28.5010407@Sun.Com> Martin Bochnig wrote: > #0.) I had stated a number of different things during the last 30 hours, > in several emails So have I - yet I'm not expecting everyone to respond, nor am I expecting every problem to be fixed... I saw your email, thought it clearly expressed the current chaotic state of our website and the rationale for wanting to concretely express a set of usable branding guidelines so we could fix it in a consistent manner. I even responded to your email (twice), though I didn't feel that I needed to do a point-by-point me-too me-too. > #1.) What you are calling a (minor) website issue: A corporate attitude Sorry - I /can't/ fix that page on the website, but the people who listen to website-discuss can - and do. I'd expect Derek to jump on this rather quickly - once he knows about it... > I never had to contact any list to set those > links up. 2 years ago things were much simpler. I'll bet that very few of us are still subscribed to opensolaris-discuss, for example... > It costs me time to write in a foreign language. Your English is fine - certainly better than my German :-) -John From mb1x at gmx.com Tue Oct 23 18:20:30 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:20:30 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471E9C28.5010407@Sun.Com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> <471E9C28.5010407@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <471E9DDE.5070505@gmx.com> John Plocher wrote: > Martin Bochnig wrote: >> #0.) I had stated a number of different things during the last 30 >> hours, in several emails > > So have I - yet I'm not expecting everyone to respond, nor am I > expecting every problem to be fixed... > > I saw your email, thought it clearly expressed the current chaotic > state of our website and the rationale for wanting to concretely express > a set of usable branding guidelines so we could fix it in a consistent > manner. I even responded to your email (twice), though I didn't feel > that I needed to do a point-by-point me-too me-too. A) I didn't mean you or Brian. B) I admit, that I also didn't respond to much of what you have said in your later mails. I'm currently working on homework that I need to deliver in 10 hours. I'll try to be more ON-topic / less OT and to try posting to each appropriate list for each matter. Yes, this isn't the general list. But the decision makers are definitely reading all this. I have also some comments concerning your more recent mails, talk to you later, as soon as I have more time. -- %martin From chris.mahan at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 19:41:41 2007 From: chris.mahan at gmail.com (Chris Mahan) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:41:41 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471E9DDE.5070505@gmx.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> <471E9C28.5010407@Sun.Com> <471E9DDE.5070505@gmx.com> Message-ID: <4d9b53db0710231941j3288f43dw7042d32d42fcacad@mail.gmail.com> On 10/23/07, Martin Bochnig wrote: > > ... Yes, this isn't the > general list. But the decision makers are definitely reading all this. > > Yes we are. We are the people to decide whether or not to use OpenSolaris Distros. -- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/ chris_mahan at yahoo.com chris.mahan at gmail.com cell 818.943.1850 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevel at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 23 21:41:00 2007 From: stevel at opensolaris.org (Stephen Lau) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:41:00 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> Message-ID: <471ECCDC.2080607@opensolaris.org> Martin Bochnig wrote: > #1.) What you are calling a (minor) website issue: A corporate attitude > where nobody feels responsible for anything beyond his desk's end, is a > bad attitude Sunnies!). I never had to contact any list to set those > links up. Nobody ever contacted me regarding a review of those links. > Now they are producing FUD for over a year. > Martin, What you fail to realise is there are thousands of emails flying through the OpenSolaris mailing lists every day - given that there is exactly *ONE* person who is responsible for the larger view of OpenSolaris content on the website, he is already over-tasked and stretched as it is - how can you expect him to see your email regarding website issues when you don't post it to the relevant list? I know for a fact he watches website-discuss and is extremely responsive to comments posted there - but he is most likely not going to see your comment when you post it off-topic to a list he is in all likelihood not subscribed to. > It costs me time to write in a foreign language. > And we appreciate your efforts in doing so. > But is my English all that bad? Does nobody understand (or take the time > to read) what I would like to express? What else is preventing folks > from answering my questions? > I can't speak for your on-topic concerns regarding Indiana and naming - but your off-topic comments about website discussion is off-topic. So nobody will answer them in this forum in an attempt to keep this list on-topic. > A hundred people have stated they wanna discuss. Is it only > sunshine-weather they would like to discuss about? > No - but on-topic discussions are encouraged. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net From mb1x at gmx.com Wed Oct 24 02:46:58 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:46:58 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] How about NOT giving any one distro the exclusive name "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471ECCDC.2080607@opensolaris.org> References: <47166741.1010006@sun.com> <47194E2F.9070509@sun.com> <47196049.3040106@Sun.Com> <1193056284.1799.31.camel@cranialtrauma> <471CA5E6.50204@gmx.com> <471CECA7.9090009@Sun.Com> <471D082B.2090907@Sun.Com> <471D14FD.4040701@gmx.com> <471E5F6D.2050406@gmx.com> <5b5090780710231429w4b819cd2v23329415be1338bd@mail.gmail.com> <471E983F.4040508@gmx.com> <471ECCDC.2080607@opensolaris.org> Message-ID: <471F1492.8080001@gmx.com> Stephen Lau wrote: > Martin Bochnig wrote: >> #1.) What you are calling a (minor) website issue: A corporate >> attitude where nobody feels responsible for anything beyond his >> desk's end, is a bad attitude Sunnies!). I never had to contact any >> list to set those links up. Nobody ever contacted me regarding a >> review of those links. Now they are producing FUD for over a year. >> > Martin, > What you fail to realise is there are thousands of emails flying > through the OpenSolaris mailing lists every day - given that there is > exactly *ONE* person who is responsible for the larger view of > OpenSolaris content on the website, he is already over-tasked and > stretched as it is - how can you expect him to see your email > regarding website issues when you don't post it to the relevant list? > I know for a fact he watches website-discuss and is extremely > responsive to comments posted there - but he is most likely not going > to see your comment when you post it off-topic to a list he is in all > likelihood not subscribed to. Hello, in my wildest imagination: How can it be that a single person is responsible for all this?? If Sun thinks only someone on the payroll is trustworthy of doing this bold task, then more people should be on the payroll (here, me ... [dark joke]). Otherwise other ways have to be gone (see other open src projects). Sorry, but I cannot believe this. And I apologize to that one person, as she / he cannot be blamed for such a scenario. Best, Martin From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 24 05:43:01 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:43:01 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> Message-ID: <471f3dd5.6fr5LFtG0C2eMczg%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > It's not clear to me right now if Indiana or any other near-future > > distribution will be distrbuted via a mechanism that does not require me to > > get and maintain a Sun download account, and additionally doesn't prevent me > > from redistributing that ISO via other means like torrent, et al. I would > > prefer to able to get Indiana (or personally preferrable - KIndiana a.k.a > > "The OpenSolaris KDE Laptop Distro") via torrent and not suffer the week it > > took me to get SNV 73. > > Let me clear that up then :) > > One of the primary goals of Indiana is to produce something that is > *freely* redistributable. That means torrents, websites, pigeon ip > protocol, sneaker net, etc. ;) I thought this was to replace Solaris Express J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From swalker at opensolaris.org Wed Oct 24 06:08:05 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:08:05 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: <471f3dd5.6fr5LFtG0C2eMczg%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> <471f3dd5.6fr5LFtG0C2eMczg%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 24/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > It's not clear to me right now if Indiana or any other near-future > > > distribution will be distrbuted via a mechanism that does not require me to > > > get and maintain a Sun download account, and additionally doesn't prevent me > > > from redistributing that ISO via other means like torrent, et al. I would > > > prefer to able to get Indiana (or personally preferrable - KIndiana a.k.a > > > "The OpenSolaris KDE Laptop Distro") via torrent and not suffer the week it > > > took me to get SNV 73. > > > > Let me clear that up then :) > > > > One of the primary goals of Indiana is to produce something that is > > *freely* redistributable. That means torrents, websites, pigeon ip > > protocol, sneaker net, etc. ;) > > I thought this was to replace Solaris Express That too; but one of the main goals (so I've been told) is to have something freely redistributable. That means no CDE, etc. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 24 06:11:20 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:11:20 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] How we could call an OpenSolaris distribution "OpenSolaris" In-Reply-To: References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> <471f3dd5.6fr5LFtG0C2eMczg%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <471f4478.XaKxqrESCBWU/oJk%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > I thought this was to replace Solaris Express > > That too; but one of the main goals (so I've been told) is to have > something freely redistributable. That means no CDE, etc. Maybe I was too short, I ment that it was to replace Solaris Express by something freely redistributable and have a small chunk of non-redistributable in a separate add-on package. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Wed Oct 24 08:06:13 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:06:13 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana - a free distro or a replacement for Sun's SXDE? In-Reply-To: <471f3dd5.6fr5LFtG0C2eMczg%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <1193156626.29348.28.camel@haiiro> <471f3dd5.6fr5LFtG0C2eMczg%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <471F5F65.4010209@Sun.Com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > I thought this was to replace Solaris Express It is my impression that, at some point after Indiana is actually delivering snapshots, that Sun desires to stop with SX (or maybe SXDE) and 'replace it' with Indiana Snapshots (or whatever the 6-month things are called) But that all is simply an optimization - why duplicate effort? -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 08:51:56 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> Message-ID: <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> [responding to a private email, but back in the public forum] Glynn Foster wrote: > I'd like to see compatible distributions use exactly the same unmodified package > repository I'm unsure how the word "exact" should be interpreted: How does this work over time as the bits in the repository are updated pseudo real-time with bug fixes, new features and the like? What about a mirrored repository? What about one with the same package contents, but compiled locally (with different md5 checksums and dates)? It would be good to describe your vision of what repositories might exist, what their attributes are, and how they would change over time, and how they (or particular ones) would fit into such a scheme. -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 10:38:36 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:38:36 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> Message-ID: <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> [moving this discussion over to trademark-policy-dev] Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: >> Finally, this sounds like you do not want anybody else to create their >> own distribution? > > It seems to be a real turning-point for OpenSolaris community. > Martin has a point...how should we interpret your post ? How about "In a charitable manner that presumes good intent?" For me, this is all boiling down to a very simple decision tree: If you want to call your distro /.*OpenSolaris.*/, it needs to follow the rules for using the OpenSolaris trademark. If you don't want to use the OpenSolaris trademark on your distro, then you can do whatever you wish. Period. End of discussion. Schillix, Nexenta, Belinix and Martux, as well as SX and SXDR all continue as is, completely unchanged and indifferent to this conversation. i.e., this is a trademark usage issue, not a community membership, community endorsement, download-page-hosting or who can use what bits one. My understanding of trademark law is minimal - and growing less every minute; IANAL. I think it says the following about the rules for using a trademark: Sun (the trademark owner) needs to ensure that the OpenSolaris (and by reduction, the Solaris) trademarks are adequately protected under a cross-section of international trademark law. Without that confidence, Sun's executives can't legally allow use of the trademark since it is a major Sun asset. The key protective steps seem to be: (1) A clear usage policy that (2) Has a quality control metric that is (3) Administered by Sun (although this can be with strong community direction) and (4) Can be policed effectively I hope we are all in agreement so far. If not, then we might as well go home, since those points seem pretty non-negotiable. As they say, the devil is in the details. Somebody needs to create a usage policy and there needs to be a quality control metric to make sure the value of the brand is not diluted.. Hey, that's the Trademark and Branding Project over at http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/branding/ OK, what should that usage policy look like? Please come over to the branding project (trademark-policy-dev) and help us - it promises to be an interesting discussion. -John From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 11:57:30 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:57:30 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> Hey, John Plocher wrote: > [responding to a private email, but back in the public forum] > > Glynn Foster wrote: >> I'd like to see compatible distributions use exactly the same >> unmodified package >> repository > > I'm unsure how the word "exact" should be interpreted: > > How does this work over time as the bits in the repository are updated > pseudo real-time with bug fixes, new features and the like? What about > a mirrored repository? What about one with the same package contents, > but compiled locally (with different md5 checksums and dates)? I had assumed there would be a set of official master repositories somewhere, that others could mirror locally (but not modify). Bug fixes or new features would be dependent on what release train you were on, but those updates would be pushed out to the mirroring repositories. For example, Indiana FCS 1, say, would typically have bug fixes (high priority/security) and hardware support. The repository that would eventually become FCS 2 over time, may have a large set of updates to many of the packages, whether they are bugs fixes, version upgrades, or new features. It seems that in order to maintain some protection of the trademark, some degree of preservation of binary compatibility needs to be made - if we allow people to compile locally, we may lose that protection through a variety of means (compiler versions, build hardware, ...). Any compatible distribution must be capable of connecting to one of those official master repositories (whether it's stable/unstable/experimental whatever) or its local mirror, and use that as it's core mechanism for delivering software to its user. Stephen or Danek may have very different visions on how they expect IPS to work, so it might be good to hear from them too. Glynn From brandorr at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 11:58:47 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:58:47 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/25/07, Glynn Foster wrote: > Hey, > > John Plocher wrote: > > [responding to a private email, but back in the public forum] > > > > Glynn Foster wrote: > >> I'd like to see compatible distributions use exactly the same > >> unmodified package > >> repository > > > > I'm unsure how the word "exact" should be interpreted: > > > > How does this work over time as the bits in the repository are updated > > pseudo real-time with bug fixes, new features and the like? What about > > a mirrored repository? What about one with the same package contents, > > but compiled locally (with different md5 checksums and dates)? > > I had assumed there would be a set of official master repositories somewhere, > that others could mirror locally (but not modify). Bug fixes or new features > would be dependent on what release train you were on, but those updates would be > pushed out to the mirroring repositories. > > For example, Indiana FCS 1, say, would typically have bug fixes (high > priority/security) and hardware support. The repository that would eventually > become FCS 2 over time, may have a large set of updates to many of the packages, > whether they are bugs fixes, version upgrades, or new features. > > It seems that in order to maintain some protection of the trademark, some degree > of preservation of binary compatibility needs to be made - if we allow people to > compile locally, we may lose that protection through a variety of means > (compiler versions, build hardware, ...). > > Any compatible distribution must be capable of connecting to one of those > official master repositories (whether it's stable/unstable/experimental > whatever) or its local mirror, and use that as it's core mechanism for > delivering software to its user. > > Stephen or Danek may have very different visions on how they expect IPS to work, > so it might be good to hear from them too. What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? > Glynn > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 12:12:54 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:12:54 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> Hey, Brandorr wrote: > What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea because I believe it massively complicates things for the typical use case. I'm not really the person qualified to talk about it though. Glynn From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 13:03:46 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:03:46 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> Message-ID: <4720F6A2.5020407@Sun.Com> Glynn Foster wrote: > Hey, > > Brandorr wrote: >> What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? > > The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea What if the test suite was simply an audit that this distro did, in fact, get built out of the required packages from the required repository? Not quite as hard as a full functional test (and maybe not quite as useful in the long term...), but potentially good enuf to get to the next stage... $0.02 -John From storycrafter at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 13:46:20 2007 From: storycrafter at gmail.com (Mark Martin) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:46:20 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4720F6A2.5020407@Sun.Com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <4720F6A2.5020407@Sun.Com> Message-ID: On 10/25/07, John Plocher wrote: > > Glynn Foster wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Brandorr wrote: > >> What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? > > > > The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea > > What if the test suite was simply an audit that this distro did, in fact, > get built out of the required packages from the required repository? > > Not quite as hard as a full functional test (and maybe not quite as > useful in the long term...), but potentially good enuf to get to the > next stage... > > $0.02 I'm torn here. I understand Sun's desire to protect its trademark. I disagree with some of the contention about how building, bundling, and distribution are all indivisible and 100% tied to protection of that trademark -- IANAL, though. I honestly wonder if that means that the only innovation and evolution of the OpenSolaris platform will be restricted to coming from within Sun. I'm imagining a line of thought that goes like this: I like a lot of the technologies in OpenSolaris. I perhaps want to replace some of userland (and hence am not as worried about 100% binary compatibility) I want to use another packaging system, something more "Linux" friendly or familiar. I want to build a "Bridge" platform for those who are already invested in Linux + GNU. I want to bundle "XYZ", which is a super new technology and the licenses are (amazingly) compatible but XYZ may never see it's way into the repositories or is poorly maintained there Oh, I can't call it "* Open Solaris *" anymore, because I'm not using #include "Indiana-bits" and not pointing to and using the "official" repositories. I can think of half a dozen scenarios like this. It's hard not to be cynical and think that all of this community discussion may be moot because it's patently obvious that Sun needs to manage and control as much of the trademark as possible. Frankly, I'm a little surprised (and suspicious) that this is even really a "community" discussion. I'm not trying to belittle the conversation to date, but the trademark isn't owned by the "community", right? Imagine the conversation around the water cooler one day: Bill: What'd you do last night? Ted: Oh, I put SomeDistro on my laptop. Bill: SomeDistro, what's that? Ted: Oh, it's built on Open Solaris, uses a distribution system a lot like Ubuntu/Debian, and uses a lot of GNU software, but they can't say that they're "Open Solaris" < Ted uses the air-quote sign> Ted continues: because of trademark won't allow it. It's cool because they also bundle XYZ into it, which isn't available via "Indiana". Of course, it also has ZFS and SMF and all that Open Solaris "goodness". Bill: Oh yeah. "Open" Bill continues: "Solaris". Now an argument for certification as the barrier for using the trademark or not might make me rethink. Otherwise I'll just wait and hope Indiana hits it out of the ballpark at first go. -John > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > Mark -- ------------------------------------------------------ Born to the false world, the wanderer, Storyteller, The Pied Piper On a quest for immortality Gathering a troop to find the fantasy -- Nightwish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 14:45:42 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:45:42 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <4720F6A2.5020407@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <47210E86.1010303@Sun.Com> Mark Martin wrote: > I'm torn here. I understand Sun's desire to protect its trademark. I > disagree with some of the contention about how building, bundling, and > distribution are all indivisible and 100% tied to protection of that > trademark I'll be first in line saying that Sun screwed up. They *NEVER* should have used a derivative of their Solaris brand for this community. We wouldn't be having this sort of trademark conversation if Sun had called the community something like "GlassPig" in the first place (ref the flying pig mascot discussion and the GlassFish J2EE community...) Unfortunately, that's all water under the damn. As it is, the "what is reasonable to expect..." discussions seem to be narrowing things down to three distro use-cases: 1) Don't wish to use /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? no problem, do what you want... 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or "Compatible with OpenSolaris" 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or other phrases that don't imply compatibility. Your "incompatible, but way cool" distro conversation could also be Bill: What'd you do last night? Ted: Oh, I put SomeDistro on my laptop. Bill: SomeDistro, what's that? Ted: It's built on Open Solaris, but isn't binary compatible with it. SomeDistro has its own distribution system (a lot like Ubuntu/Debian), and uses a lot of GNU software. It's cool because they also bundle XYZ into it, which isn't available via "Indiana". Of course, it also has ZFS and SMF and most of the other Open Solaris "goodness"... Bill: Cool - I build all my stuff from sources, so binary compatibility isn't an issue for me, but at work we use Oracle and BEA, so I couldn't use it there. Of course, IANAL, and worse, IANA, so I'm in no position to dictate this viewpoint to anyone :-) -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 14:51:33 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:51:33 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Using the X Window System trademark as an example? Re: [ogb-discuss] Creating a place for AMD-related work In-Reply-To: <47210A9A.9010206@sun.com> References: <18196.49138.99806.767720@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <6F0A45EF9F0E184B861510AE795FE5EE010230D5@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <18196.53481.623054.155617@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <6096959DEF5C9447A6BF80BDC7EB9EDC08737F08@SBOSEXMB1.amd.com> <18197.3162.514040.610904@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <6096959DEF5C9447A6BF80BDC7EB9EDC08737F09@SBOSEXMB1.amd.com> <47210A9A.9010206@sun.com> Message-ID: <47210FE5.2010702@Sun.Com> [Moving over to trademark-policy-dev] Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: >> X Window System is a trademark of MIT (or was at one time). > > It's my understanding that the trademark was lost in one of the > many changes of control of X over the past two decades (MIT -> > X Consortium -> Open Group -> X.Org Group -> X.Org Foundation), > but if it was still valid, it would be an excellent example of > one we'd want to allow. > What mechanism does/did they have to control usage of the mark? Could anyone use the mark for whatever they wanted, or were there policies that dictated content or functionality requirements? -John From brandorr at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 15:09:45 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:09:45 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> On 10/25/07, Glynn Foster wrote: > Hey, > > Brandorr wrote: > > What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? > > The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea because I believe it > massively complicates things for the typical use case. I'm not really the person > qualified to talk about it though. What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). Excluding these groundbreaking distros from trying for compatibility is a mistake, in my opinion. (I understand it's not an easy problem, but we need to keep the door open). Also, have we come up with a term other than OpenSolaris to describe the family of OSes that are descendants of Solaris? > Glynn > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From swalker at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 15:57:14 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:57:14 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 25/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > On 10/25/07, Glynn Foster wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Brandorr wrote: > > > What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? > > > > The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea because I believe it > > massively complicates things for the typical use case. I'm not really the person > > qualified to talk about it though. > > What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? > > Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even > Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). Right, but trying to be compatible and actually being compatible are two different things. The only way without extensive test suite to verify compatibility is to ensure that the same components, packaging, etc. are used. > Excluding these groundbreaking distros from trying for compatibility > is a mistake, in my opinion. (I understand it's not an easy problem, > but we need to keep the door open). They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. In their documentation, they can point out that they're designed to be compatible as possible with OpenSolaris, but they cannot claim compatibility. That's all it is to me... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From brandorr at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 16:08:45 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:08:45 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710251608t41ad0a29k14f31c9a07f85c09@mail.gmail.com> On 10/25/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 25/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > > On 10/25/07, Glynn Foster wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > > > Brandorr wrote: > > > > What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? > > > > > > The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea because I believe it > > > massively complicates things for the typical use case. I'm not really the person > > > qualified to talk about it though. > > > > What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? > > > > Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even > > Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). > > Right, but trying to be compatible and actually being compatible are > two different things. The only way without extensive test suite to > verify compatibility is to ensure that the same components, packaging, > etc. are used. > > > Excluding these groundbreaking distros from trying for compatibility > > is a mistake, in my opinion. (I understand it's not an easy problem, > > but we need to keep the door open). > > They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. Whose compatibility guidelines? Yours? > In their documentation, they can point out that they're designed to be > compatible as possible with OpenSolaris, but they cannot claim > compatibility. That's all it is to me... > > -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. " --Donald Knuth > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 16:26:36 2007 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:26:36 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4721262C.5040907@sun.com> Shawn Walker wrote: > On 25/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > >> On 10/25/07, Glynn Foster wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> Brandorr wrote: >>> >>>> What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? >>>> >>> The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea because I believe it >>> massively complicates things for the typical use case. I'm not really the person >>> qualified to talk about it though. >>> >> What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? >> >> Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even >> Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). >> > > Right, but trying to be compatible and actually being compatible are > two different things. The only way without extensive test suite to > verify compatibility is to ensure that the same components, packaging, > etc. are used. > And they can still use the OpenSolaris TM, it will just have a qualifier. "Built on OpenSolaris". Indicating that uses the technology or code, but that it isn't compatible. > >> Excluding these groundbreaking distros from trying for compatibility >> is a mistake, in my opinion. (I understand it's not an easy problem, >> but we need to keep the door open). >> > > They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. > > In their documentation, they can point out that they're designed to be > compatible as possible with OpenSolaris, but they cannot claim > compatibility. That's all it is to me... > Exactly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 16:31:14 2007 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:31:14 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710251608t41ad0a29k14f31c9a07f85c09@mail.gmail.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710251608t41ad0a29k14f31c9a07f85c09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47212742.4070207@sun.com> Brandorr wrote: > On 10/25/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > >> On 25/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: >> >>> On 10/25/07, Glynn Foster wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, >>>> >>>> Brandorr wrote: >>>> >>>>> What happened with the idea of a compatibility testing suite? >>>>> >>>> The idea is still there. I don't personally like the idea because I believe it >>>> massively complicates things for the typical use case. I'm not really the person >>>> qualified to talk about it though. >>>> >>> What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? >>> >>> Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even >>> Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). >>> >> Right, but trying to be compatible and actually being compatible are >> two different things. The only way without extensive test suite to >> verify compatibility is to ensure that the same components, packaging, >> etc. are used. >> >> >>> Excluding these groundbreaking distros from trying for compatibility >>> is a mistake, in my opinion. (I understand it's not an easy problem, >>> but we need to keep the door open). >>> >> They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. >> > > Whose compatibility guidelines? Yours? > This goes to the definition of core that John Plocher has brought up and will determine binary application compatibility across OpenSolaris distributions. Please join that conversation. > >> In their documentation, they can point out that they're designed to be >> compatible as possible with OpenSolaris, but they cannot claim >> compatibility. That's all it is to me... >> >> -- >> Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst >> binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ >> >> "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not >> tried it. " --Donald Knuth >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brandorr at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 16:47:56 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:47:56 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Linux as example. Message-ID: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> Let's drop the whole compatibility line for a sec. It's one of those rat holes that we could spend hours/days on. Like John said, things should have been different, and a community should have been built around a name that isn't Solaris. But Sun screwed up and that didn't happen. The community has coalesced around OpenSolaris and considers themselves part of the OpenSolaris community. (Not the "distro formerly known as Indiana" community.) At this point it would be a extremely impolite if Sun disallowed others from using "Solaris" to brand their distros, while allowing Sun's distro Indiana, and it's binary derivatives to be called Solaris. It would be as if the Linux Mark Institute decided after a number of years of encouraging third parties to go build Linux distros, to decide that Ubuntu was the way of the future, and that from now on Ubuntu = Linux, and only distros based on Ubuntu could call themselves Linux. Frankly, Sun can probably afford to write off the goodwill of the few and brave who have been early members of the community. And I can not make a dollars and cents argument for this, but I just hope Sun understands and can come up with an equitable solution. (That might possibly be giving Indiana a name that isn't Solaris. It might also be, allowing Martux, Nexenta and Shillix to use Solaris as part of their names if they so choose.) Keep in mind that part of the reason the OpenSolaris brand has equity, is that community helped spread the word, including user groups, and some key third party developers who seem to have given their essence into advancing the state of Solaris. Here are a few examples of names that I think might be agreeable: - Personally I really liked the name GNU/Solaris, as it described the distro perfectly. (A Debian based Solaris distro). - I have also heard of a Solaris distro w/ a FreeBSD user space and it is internally called FreeSolaris by the company that built it. ;) (You probably know who it is). Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. -Brian P.S. - Someone said to me do we allow a RedHat Enterprise Solaris? I think we probably should. First, RedHat would be destroying their own brand if they adopted Solaris, and second who is going to trust RedHat to build their own Solaris? P.S.S. - How did that old String song go? Oh yeah, "If you love somebody, set them free You can't control an independent heart Can't tear the one you love apart Forever conditioned to believe that we can't live We can't live here and be happy with less So many riches, so many souls Everything we see we want to possess If you need somebody, call my name If you want someone, you can do the same If you want to keep something precious You got to lock it up and throw away the key If you want to hold onto your possession Don't even think about me If you love somebody, set them free " -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From swalker at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 17:11:46 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:11:46 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 25/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > At this point it would be a extremely impolite if Sun disallowed > others from using "Solaris" to brand their distros, while allowing > Sun's distro Indiana, and it's binary derivatives to be called > Solaris. It would be as if the Linux Mark Institute decided after a > number of years of encouraging third parties to go build Linux > distros, to decide that Ubuntu was the way of the future, and that > from now on Ubuntu = Linux, and only distros based on Ubuntu could > call themselves Linux. But that's not what is being proposed. Distributions won't be prevented from using the trademark completely; just prevented from using it in certain ways. It's the same way with the UNIX trademark; as an example. You have to meet certain criteria to use that trademark (excluding licensing for the moment). Just think about some of the things people mentioned earlier; for example, should a distribution that uses only DTrace, but no other OpenSolaris technology be allowed to call itself "OpenSolaris Ultra-Developer Edition"? Probably not. A blow-by-blow commentary of the proposed guidelines would probably go a long way to help many understand your perspective. > Keep in mind that part of the reason the OpenSolaris brand has equity, > is that community helped spread the word, including user groups, and > some key third party developers who seem to have given their essence > into advancing the state of Solaris. > > Here are a few examples of names that I think might be agreeable: This still doesn't address the problem that many *users* are expecting to download something called OpenSolaris when they visit opensolaris.org; just as folks expect to download something called Ubuntu when they go to ubuntu.com. It may not be fair in certain ways to other distributions; but I think meeting user expectations is more important. Believe me; I initially complained about the same thing. However, after hearing Ian's ideas about it, and continuing to see posts from users complaining about the confusion surrounding the downloads, I have changed my position. > Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in > exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. I'm not sure I see the connection there. Can you expound? Part of the reason that trademark protections exist; to prevent confusion in the market. As part of a thriving Solaris eco-system Sun needs to be able to produce it's commercial product without experincing market-place confusion. Admittedly, they may have shot themselves in the foot by making the OpenSolaris mark so close to the original one, but I think they deserve it nonetheless. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 18:07:20 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:07:20 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47213DC8.40204@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > Solaris. It would be as if the Linux Mark Institute decided after a > number of years of encouraging third parties to go build Linux > distros, to decide that Ubuntu was the way of the future, and that > from now on Ubuntu = Linux, and only distros based on Ubuntu could > call themselves Linux. I'm confused, Brian. Aren't you paying attention to the discussion that is currently happening? You know, the one that is trying to say "everyone can use the OpenSolaris brand, but we expect that the brand to mean more than the vermouth in James Bond's Martini"[1]? If you are trying to suggest that the requirements to use the OpenSolaris brand should be simply that a distro uses code found somewhere on opensolaris.org", then say that. All this conjecturing about how some contributers might feel if other people did stupid things isn't doing anything to resolve the questions we all have. > Frankly, Sun can probably afford to write off the goodwill of the few > and brave who have been early members of the community. And I can not Why do you think that Joerg, Martin, Moinak or Erast would be upset by any of this discussion? Go look at the distros. How are they currently branding themselves? "BeleniX is a free live CD based on the OpenSolaris kernel" "MartUX: Welcome to a real OpenSolaris based open UNIX distro." "NexentaOS is a complete GNU-based open source operating system." built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime." "Schillix - OpenSolaris based distribution" Gee, you know what? All of them TODAY are identifying themselves exactly like the [draft, not yet formally proposed] guidelines suggest that they should! If we adopted them as-is (not that they are even remotely ready for such ratification), the existing distros would not be affected at all! > It might also > be, allowing Martux, Nexenta and Shillix to use Solaris as part of > their names if they so choose. > ... > Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in > exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. What are you smoking, and will you share? :-) Given that "Solaris" is one of those "billion dollar brands", like Coke, Google and Budweiser, there is no way that I can see Sun *ever* letting go of it. This is why it is so hard to get Sun to let go (even a little bit) of the "OpenSolaris"[one word, not two] brand. -John ____ http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art2581.asp (i.e., there is no vermouth in Bond's martini) This brings to mind Stubb's suggestion of how to cook whale-steaks in Melvill's Moby Dick. Think of the coal as "opensolaris code", and the steak as "some distro": ?Well then, cook, you see this whale-steak of yours was so very bad, that have put it out of sight as soon as possible; you see that, don?t you? Well, for the future, when you cook another whale-steak for my private table here, the capstan, I?ll tell you what to do so as not to spoil it by overdoing. Hold the steak in one hand, and show a live coal to it with the other; that done, dish it; d?ye hear? (chapter 64, Stubb's Supper) I'd hope the OpenSolaris brand means more than that :-) From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 18:10:07 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:10:07 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710251608t41ad0a29k14f31c9a07f85c09@mail.gmail.com> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710251608t41ad0a29k14f31c9a07f85c09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47213E6F.2080103@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: >> They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. > > Whose compatibility guidelines? Yours? "Ours"? We (those of us participating in this conversation) have an opportunity to influence what those guidelines say, even though the discussions so far seem to have focused entirely on everything but specifics. Ultimately, though, the answer will be "Sun's", because Sun cares deeply about compatibility being a key value of its OpenSolaris and Solaris brands. The only variable here is the question of "how much compatibility is enough to satisfy Sun, the trademark gods, the lawyers, and those of us in the community who care deeply about this issue?" -John From Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 18:18:09 2007 From: Sara.Dornsife at Sun.COM (Sara Dornsife) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:18:09 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47214051.6040305@sun.com> I couldn't have said it better myself Shawn. Thank you for being so clear. Sara Shawn Walker wrote: > On 25/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > >> At this point it would be a extremely impolite if Sun disallowed >> others from using "Solaris" to brand their distros, while allowing >> Sun's distro Indiana, and it's binary derivatives to be called >> Solaris. It would be as if the Linux Mark Institute decided after a >> number of years of encouraging third parties to go build Linux >> distros, to decide that Ubuntu was the way of the future, and that >> from now on Ubuntu = Linux, and only distros based on Ubuntu could >> call themselves Linux. >> > > But that's not what is being proposed. Distributions won't be > prevented from using the trademark completely; just prevented from > using it in certain ways. > > It's the same way with the UNIX trademark; as an example. You have to > meet certain criteria to use that trademark (excluding licensing for > the moment). > > Just think about some of the things people mentioned earlier; for > example, should a distribution that uses only DTrace, but no other > OpenSolaris technology be allowed to call itself "OpenSolaris > Ultra-Developer Edition"? Probably not. > > A blow-by-blow commentary of the proposed guidelines would probably go > a long way to help many understand your perspective. > > >> Keep in mind that part of the reason the OpenSolaris brand has equity, >> is that community helped spread the word, including user groups, and >> some key third party developers who seem to have given their essence >> into advancing the state of Solaris. >> >> Here are a few examples of names that I think might be agreeable: >> > > This still doesn't address the problem that many *users* are expecting > to download something called OpenSolaris when they visit > opensolaris.org; just as folks expect to download something called > Ubuntu when they go to ubuntu.com. > > It may not be fair in certain ways to other distributions; but I think > meeting user expectations is more important. > > Believe me; I initially complained about the same thing. However, > after hearing Ian's ideas about it, and continuing to see posts from > users complaining about the confusion surrounding the downloads, I > have changed my position. > > >> Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in >> exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. >> > > I'm not sure I see the connection there. Can you expound? > > Part of the reason that trademark protections exist; to prevent > confusion in the market. > > As part of a thriving Solaris eco-system Sun needs to be able to > produce it's commercial product without experincing market-place > confusion. > > Admittedly, they may have shot themselves in the foot by making the > OpenSolaris mark so close to the original one, but I think they > deserve it nonetheless. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 18:59:50 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:59:50 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> Keep in mind that part of the reason the OpenSolaris brand has equity, >> is that community helped spread the word, including user groups, and >> some key third party developers who seem to have given their essence >> into advancing the state of Solaris. >> >> Here are a few examples of names that I think might be agreeable: >> > > This still doesn't address the problem that many *users* are expecting > to download something called OpenSolaris when they visit > opensolaris.org; just as folks expect to download something called > Ubuntu when they go to ubuntu.com. > > It may not be fair in certain ways to other distributions; but I think > meeting user expectations is more important. > > Believe me; I initially complained about the same thing. However, > after hearing Ian's ideas about it, and continuing to see posts from > users complaining about the confusion surrounding the downloads, I > have changed my position. > Why didn't they rename SXCR to OpenSXCR back in June 2005? They never got tired of emphasizing that "Solaris Express Community Release" was just yet another "OpenSolaris Distribution", only see the downloads page. User expectations could have been met quite easily, by just having renamed SXCR 2++ years ago, to what it is: A reference distro of OpenSolaris, with misc. closed parts in it (though less and less at that). Now Indiana is going to come. A nice name. Why not just keeping it? Or calling it "Fully Open OpenSXCR", while renaming the traditional SXCR to "OpenSXCR Classic Edition"? I recall Sara asking about into what SXCR should be renamed to (at her summit-talk). My suggestion would be "OpenSXCR Classic Edition", isn't that a logical naming approach? Well, of course, it can also be called milk&&sugar environment, but what makes more sense? > >> Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in >> exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. >> > > I'm not sure I see the connection there. Can you expound? > Don't you want (at least to try) to understand? And if you really bother so much about user expectations, they also expect a thought-through naming policy, strategy driven, rather than ad-hoc. What will you tell a customer when being asked to explain the difference Solaris vs. OpenSolaris? Well, I agree: Under the new rules there hardly isn't any anymore (just cut "Open" from "OpenSolaris". > Part of the reason that trademark protections exist; to prevent > confusion in the market. > ha ha. I think the opposite is the case! Who can confirm this assumption, please? And in terms of the UNIX brand: IMO Linux should also be granted permission to use the UNIX (T.M.) brand (if they still want it at all!). Now we have a "growing Linux market" and a "severely declining UNIX market". That's all what the inverstors "know" about it. When they hear the term UNIX, they refuse to invest. When they hear "Linux market", they go crazy and invest like mad, like in a casino!!! So UNIX has effectively harmed itself, because if nobody provides cash, it is more and more difficult, or unlikely, that a firm can afford pushing huge sums into R&D (with the exception of what Sun managed to do for Solaris10, back in 2003/2004, financed with the cash from the settlement with MS). LinUX is UNIX, even Jonathan repeatedly tells that. See http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html (or the mail correspondence from the early 90ties). But most external people (investors, general public, edu's) don't. Most people think UNIX must be some old stuff from the 70ties/80ties/90ties, if they have ever heard that term at all. While anybody recognizes the brand LinUX, thinking of it as something modern, fancy, stable, completely written from scratch, probably all done by that single genius, how was he called?. Yes, even ask senior Maths students at an arbitrary University in Germany (which is one of the UNIX-friendliest countries). In Romania or the Ukraine many Campuses don't even run Linux, they just take WinXP. And "UNIX" is a completely unknown word for most students there (except CS students). So what (cashable) market-benefit do you have from your restrictive policies? > As part of a thriving Solaris eco-system Sun needs to be able to > produce it's commercial product without experincing market-place > confusion. > Until now Sun has produced enough confusion by itself, shall we really repeat all those examples proving that? No, in your and Sun's own interest. > Admittedly, they may have shot themselves in the foot by making the > OpenSolaris mark so close to the original one, but I think they > deserve it nonetheless. No comment. -- Martin Bochnig http://www.martux.org/xorg From swalker at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 19:25:03 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:25:03 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> Message-ID: On 25/10/2007, Martin Bochnig wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > >> Keep in mind that part of the reason the OpenSolaris brand has equity, > >> is that community helped spread the word, including user groups, and > >> some key third party developers who seem to have given their essence > >> into advancing the state of Solaris. > >> > >> Here are a few examples of names that I think might be agreeable: > >> > > > > This still doesn't address the problem that many *users* are expecting > > to download something called OpenSolaris when they visit > > opensolaris.org; just as folks expect to download something called > > Ubuntu when they go to ubuntu.com. > > > > It may not be fair in certain ways to other distributions; but I think > > meeting user expectations is more important. > > > > Believe me; I initially complained about the same thing. However, > > after hearing Ian's ideas about it, and continuing to see posts from > > users complaining about the confusion surrounding the downloads, I > > have changed my position. > > > > > Why didn't they rename SXCR to OpenSXCR back in June 2005? > They never got tired of emphasizing that "Solaris Express Community > Release" was just yet another "OpenSolaris Distribution", only see the > downloads page. > User expectations could have been met quite easily, by just having > renamed SXCR 2++ years ago, to what it is: A reference distro of > OpenSolaris, with misc. closed parts in it (though less and less at that). > Now Indiana is going to come. A nice name. Why not just keeping it? > Or calling it "Fully Open OpenSXCR", while renaming the traditional SXCR > to "OpenSXCR Classic Edition"? > I recall Sara asking about into what SXCR should be renamed to (at her > summit-talk). My suggestion would be "OpenSXCR Classic Edition", isn't > that a logical naming approach? > Well, of course, it can also be called milk&&sugar environment, but what > makes more sense? OpenSXCR doesn't solve the issue that users are expecting something called "OpenSolaris" not "OpenSXCR". > > > >> Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in > >> exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. > >> > > > > I'm not sure I see the connection there. Can you expound? > > > > Don't you want (at least to try) to understand? It has nothing to do with trying to understand; there isn't enough for me to extrapolate meaning in the given context. > And if you really bother so much about user expectations, they also > expect a thought-through naming policy, strategy driven, rather than ad-hoc. > What will you tell a customer when being asked to explain the difference > Solaris vs. OpenSolaris? > Well, I agree: Under the new rules there hardly isn't any anymore (just > cut "Open" from "OpenSolaris". The primary difference is that Solaris will likely always ship with commercially licensed components (such as BitStream font engine, special fonts, etc. probably) while OpenSolaris will not. That and Sun directly supports Solaris. > > Part of the reason that trademark protections exist; to prevent > > confusion in the market. > > > > ha ha. > I think the opposite is the case! Who can confirm this assumption, please? No, one of the purposes of trademarks really are about preventing confusion in the marketplace. Read this article: http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/IntellectualProperty/5_Trademark/TrademarkConfusionProofNJLJApr2005.htm or this one: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets002696.shtml or this one: http://www.venable.com/practice.cfm?action=rep_matters&practice_id=403 or this post about the Python trademark: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-August/049833.html > And in terms of the UNIX brand: IMO Linux should also be granted > permission to use the UNIX (T.M.) brand (if they still want it at all!). Why? They aren't POSIX compliant. The whole point of the UNIX trademark is to ensure that people know what is really UNIX. > LinUX is UNIX, even Jonathan repeatedly tells that. See Linux is not UNIX. It is UNIX-like and even partially compatible. However, as long it does not have full POSIX compliance, it is not UNIX. In the same way that Apple's Mac OS X didn't have UNIX certification until Leopard. > So what (cashable) market-benefit do you have from your restrictive > policies? This isn't about market benefits; this is about setting user expectations and preventing the value of the trademark from being diluted by improper use. > > As part of a thriving Solaris eco-system Sun needs to be able to > > produce it's commercial product without experincing market-place > > confusion. > > > > Until now Sun has produced enough confusion by itself, shall we really > repeat all those examples proving that? No, in your and Sun's own interest. I don't see how Sun has produced any confusion surrounding it's commercial Solaris product. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 19:29:50 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:29:50 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47213DC8.40204@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47213DC8.40204@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4721511E.3000408@gmx.com> John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > >> Solaris. It would be as if the Linux Mark Institute decided after a >> number of years of encouraging third parties to go build Linux >> distros, to decide that Ubuntu was the way of the future, and that >> from now on Ubuntu = Linux, and only distros based on Ubuntu could >> call themselves Linux. >> > > > I'm confused, Brian. That confuses me, John. > Aren't you paying attention to the discussion > that is currently happening? You know, the one that is trying to say > "everyone can use the OpenSolaris brand, but we expect that the brand > to mean more than the vermouth in James Bond's Martini"[1]? > > If you are trying to suggest that the requirements to use the > OpenSolaris brand should be simply that a distro uses code found > somewhere on opensolaris.org", then say that. All this > conjecturing about how some contributers might feel if other > people did stupid things isn't doing anything to resolve the > questions we all have. > > >> Frankly, Sun can probably afford to write off the goodwill of the few >> and brave who have been early members of the community. And I can not >> > > Why do you think that Joerg, Martin, Moinak or Erast would be upset > by any of this discussion? > > Go look at the distros. How are they currently branding themselves? > This is actually illegal: ^^^ Correction: It has been. Now I find http://opensolaris.org/os/trademark/ being changed into a positive direction: "However, we do recognize that some of you will want to label your products to communicate that they are derived from OpenSolaris technology, and are looking into making that possible. Stay tuned." It is nice to witness this. > "BeleniX is a free live CD based on the OpenSolaris kernel" > "MartUX: Welcome to a real OpenSolaris based open UNIX distro." > "NexentaOS is a complete GNU-based open source operating system." > built on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and runtime." > "Schillix - OpenSolaris based distribution" > > Gee, you know what? All of them TODAY are identifying themselves > exactly like the [draft, not yet formally proposed] guidelines > suggest that they should! If we adopted them as-is (not that they > are even remotely ready for such ratification), the existing distros > would not be affected at all! > > Nobody can use "OpenSolaris" as part of the actual name. The rest is just a description, not being in direct connection to the names. >> It might also >> be, allowing Martux, Nexenta and Shillix to use Solaris as part of >> their names if they so choose. >> ... >> Maybe the solution is to for Sun to free up the Solaris mark, in >> exchange for taking over the OpenSolaris mark. >> > > > What are you smoking, and will you share? :-) Given that "Solaris" is > one of those "billion dollar brands", like Coke, Google and Budweiser, > there is no way that I can see Sun *ever* letting go of it. This is > why it is so hard to get Sun to let go (even a little bit) of the > "OpenSolaris"[one word, not two] brand. > > -John > Linux is much more of a billion dollar brand (nowadays). This doesn't prevent a more open policy of use. Time has shown that the opposite happens to be the case. Didn't you notice? And neither Linux nor Solaris can be directly compared to Coca Cola, google or Apple, except Sun likes to go into new markets like music, food, drinks, search-algorithms/engines or Xmas-trees. -- Martin Bochnig From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 19:34:01 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:34:01 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> Message-ID: <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> Shawn Walker wrote: > > OpenSXCR doesn't solve the issue that users are expecting something > called "OpenSolaris" not "OpenSXCR". Are you really serious about this? I just wanted to save some typing. You should know, that SXCR doesn't exist. It is an abbreviation. I meant using "OpenSolaris Express Community Release", rather than continuing to use "Solaris Express Community Release". One notices that you don't want to understand. -- Martin Bochnig From swalker at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 19:40:39 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:40:39 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> Message-ID: On 25/10/2007, Martin Bochnig wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > OpenSXCR doesn't solve the issue that users are expecting something > > called "OpenSolaris" not "OpenSXCR". > > Are you really serious about this? > I just wanted to save some typing. You should know, that SXCR doesn't > exist. It is an abbreviation. > > I meant using "OpenSolaris Express Community Release", rather than > continuing to use "Solaris Express Community Release". I didn't know if you were being literal or not, so I assumed you were. Nonetheless, I think it is important to avoid having many different "OpenSolaris XYZ" versions. If you read posts on OSNews, slashdot, etc. you'll see on of the complaints is about the current naming system. Users aren't expecting a "OpenSolaris Express Community Release" and really I don't see what the benefit in that would be. Why have Express in the name? The Express part of the name is something Sun did for their Solaris releases to denote it's next generation connotations. Community Release is redundant now given that OpenSolaris is a community project and if and when we choose and make an official distribution it will have been done by the community. > One notices that you don't want to understand. Martin I think there is a language or wording barrier here. Please carefully consider that everyone has a different way of understanding things. In this particular case, I did not make the connection that you did. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 19:58:40 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:58:40 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> Message-ID: <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> Shawn Walker wrote: > >> I just wanted to save some typing. You should know, that SXCR doesn't >> exist. It is an abbreviation. >> >> I meant using "OpenSolaris Express Community Release", rather than >> continuing to use "Solaris Express Community Release". >> > > I didn't know if you were being literal or not, so I assumed you were. > Agreed, my fault. > Nonetheless, I think it is important to avoid having many different > "OpenSolaris XYZ" versions. To me this is the same as if some Linux super-authority would state, they only wanted one Linux distro. That is: from now on(!). I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net. Many distributions could be derived from it. Just as with Linux (which is the kernel + really basic libs). There is not one single "Linux" distro". Why do you think there should be one for "OpenSolaris" (== OS/Net) ? I think the sub-term "Open" and the desire to create one single selected "OpenSolaris" distro are totally contradicting one another. That's the result that I get, even after thinking about it a 100rd's time. To me, personally, and objectively, this is the most logical approach. > If you read posts on OSNews, slashdot, > etc. you'll see on of the complaints is about the current naming > system. > > Users aren't expecting a "OpenSolaris Express Community Release" and > really I don't see what the benefit in that would be. > > Why have Express in the name? The "Express" dates back to September 2003, Solaris 10 build 45 or something. It stood for "preliminary Snapshot". If Solaris 11 is still going to be based on Nevada, then this "Express" still makes sense. Except, maybe, that Solaris11 should probably calles OpenSolaris 11. This may be an inconsistency in naming, but Sun has done things like that in the past (very frequently with the compilers or the JDK, err SDK, err JDK ...). The move from Solaris2.7 Beta to Solaris 7 is another example. Major changes to the product, mixed with marketing reasons, justify such a name change in Sun's opinion. In in this special case in my opinion. > The Express part of the name is > something Sun did for their Solaris releases to denote it's next > generation connotations. > Isn't Solaris 11 the next release anymore? Will the Express line not be continued? Didn't sound that way, actually. I do see that redundance, but I'm not responsible for it., nor have any power to prevent all that stuff from costing Sun money. > Community Release is redundant now given that OpenSolaris is a > community project and if and when we choose and make an official > distribution it will have been done by the community. > > >> One notices that you don't want to understand. >> > > Martin I think there is a language or wording barrier here. Please > carefully consider that everyone has a different way of understanding > things. In this particular case, I did not make the connection that > you did. > I agree, there is one on my side. It wasn't written with a bad intention. It is almost 5A.M. here. I need to get up in 2 hours. Time for some sleep. Regards, Martin -- Martin Bochnig http://www.martux.org/xorg From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 20:09:53 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:09:53 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> Message-ID: <47215A81.6080005@gmx.com> Martin Bochnig wrote: > Except, maybe, that Solaris11 should probably calles OpenSolaris 11. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ --->> be called (Sorry: I may not be the fastest one in typing, but that damn poor SunBlade-100 (hundred) with 2GB mem thing here is trying to run Nevada and Thunderbird, and hence truncates every third word, because it is just too slow. I really need to replace it.) Talk to you later, night. > -- > Martin Bochnig > http://www.martux.org/xorg > From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 21:07:28 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:07:28 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> Message-ID: <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> All, I finally noticed that I myself have fallen into the trap of contradicting myself, here comes the ultimative correction (my suggestions) : A) "OpenSolaris" continues to stand for OS/Net, anybody is welcome to create a distro and call it foo-OpenSolaris [1.] [1]: When meeting x y z guidelines and passing some future compatibility test suite (which is hopefully to come) B) Sun has a reference distro-skeleton plus a supported #1 "OpenSolaris" distro, always being called with a "Sun " as prefix to its name, such as "Sun OpenSolaris 11" or "Sun Indiana OpenSolaris" or "Sun OpenSolaris Express Community Release" or "Sun OpenSolaris Developer Preview" or "Sun Jerico OpenSolaris" or "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris" Thoughts? -- %martin Martin Bochnig wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > >>> I just wanted to save some typing. You should know, that SXCR doesn't >>> exist. It is an abbreviation. >>> >>> I meant using "OpenSolaris Express Community Release", rather than >>> continuing to use "Solaris Express Community Release". >>> >>> >> I didn't know if you were being literal or not, so I assumed you were. >> >> > > Agreed, my fault. > > >> Nonetheless, I think it is important to avoid having many different >> "OpenSolaris XYZ" versions. >> > > To me this is the same as if some Linux super-authority would state, > they only wanted one Linux distro. > That is: from now on(!). > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net. > Many distributions could be derived from it. Just as with Linux (which > is the kernel + really basic libs). > There is not one single "Linux" distro". > Why do you think there should be one for "OpenSolaris" (== OS/Net) ? > I think the sub-term "Open" and the desire to create one single selected > "OpenSolaris" distro are totally contradicting one another. > That's the result that I get, even after thinking about it a 100rd's > time. To me, personally, and objectively, this is the most logical approach. > > > >> If you read posts on OSNews, slashdot, >> etc. you'll see on of the complaints is about the current naming >> system. >> >> Users aren't expecting a "OpenSolaris Express Community Release" and >> really I don't see what the benefit in that would be. >> >> Why have Express in the name? >> > > The "Express" dates back to September 2003, Solaris 10 build 45 or > something. > It stood for "preliminary Snapshot". > If Solaris 11 is still going to be based on Nevada, then this "Express" > still makes sense. > Except, maybe, that Solaris11 should probably be called OpenSolaris 11. > This may be an inconsistency in naming, but Sun has done things like > that in the past (very frequently with the compilers or the JDK, err > SDK, err JDK ...). > The move from Solaris2.7 Beta to Solaris 7 is another example. > Major changes to the product, mixed with marketing reasons, justify such > a name change in Sun's opinion. > And in this special case in my opinion. > > > >> The Express part of the name is >> something Sun did for their Solaris releases to denote it's next >> generation connotations. >> >> > > Isn't Solaris 11 the next release anymore? > Will the Express line not be continued? > Didn't sound that way, actually. > I do see that redundance, but I'm not responsible for it., nor have any > power to prevent all that stuff from costing Sun money. > > > >> Community Release is redundant now given that OpenSolaris is a >> community project and if and when we choose and make an official >> distribution it will have been done by the community. >> >> >> >>> One notices that you don't want to understand. >>> >>> >> Martin I think there is a language or wording barrier here. Please >> carefully consider that everyone has a different way of understanding >> things. In this particular case, I did not make the connection that >> you did. >> >> > > I agree, there is one on my side. > It wasn't written with a bad intention. > It is almost 5A.M. here. I need to get up in 2 hours. > Time for some sleep. > > Regards, > Martin > > -- > Martin Bochnig > http://www.martux.org/xorg > > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > > From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 21:33:54 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:33:54 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> Message-ID: <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> Martin Bochnig wrote: > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net. I understand your perspective; your comments make perfect sense in light of it. I, on the other hand, identify the term "OpenSolaris" with a complete operating environment that comprises OS/Net, Install, X, GNOME, Java, and possibly some parts of SWF, BlastWave and Debian. Does this change of perspective throw the light of understanding on my earlier comments? I also firmly believe that restricting the definition to simply OS/Net (such that "OpenSolaris" is equivalent to "the Linux Kernel") is shortsighted, in that it effectively keeps us from doing anything other than reinventing Linux Distro Hell. > Many distributions could be derived from it. Just as with Linux (which > is the kernel + really basic libs). > There is not one single "Linux" distro". and that is a serious bug. > Why do you think there should be one for "OpenSolaris" (== OS/Net) ? Because the balkinization of incompatible Linux Distros makes it nearly impossible for ISVs to develop, deliver and support applications for that environment. As a developer, I can't release a product that runs on Linux - I have to choose between a dozen major distros, package things up to use several different install mechanisms, test on all of them, develop work arounds, co-ship modified/updated support packages, etc etc etc. In effect, most ISVs pick redhat and maybe suse or ubuntu, and ignore the rest. Here in the US, we have a historical slogan that fits: United, we stand. Divided, we fall. > I think the sub-term "Open" and the desire to create one single selected > "OpenSolaris" distro are totally contradicting one another. Nobody is saying you can't do whatever you want. What we are saying, however, is that we, as a community, want to put all our efforts on creating a kick-ass kernel in a kick-ass distro that shows off all of its features. Not because we don't like other distros, but because we want to more than spend all our energy creating yet another distro from scratch after another. Your perspective is "why standardize on a distro when all that really matters is the kernel". Mine is "what more could we do if we had a full distro to build upon, instead of only a kernel?" Complimentary, but different perspectives. > Isn't Solaris 11 the next release anymore? To my knowledge, it never has been - this is why we use the name Nevada. Nobody at Sun has made *any* decisions about the marketing name - much to many of our annoyance :-) > Will the Express line not be continued? The indications are no, it will be obsoleted by whatever Indiana becomes. > Time for some sleep. Aha! Something that we both agree on!!! G'night! -John From mb1x at gmx.com Thu Oct 25 21:43:55 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:43:55 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4721708B.9050107@gmx.com> John Plocher wrote: > Martin Bochnig wrote: >> I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net. > > I understand your perspective; your comments make perfect sense in > light of it. > > I, on the other hand, identify the term "OpenSolaris" with a complete > operating environment that comprises OS/Net, Install, X, GNOME, Java, > and possibly some parts of SWF, BlastWave and Debian. > > Does this change of perspective throw the light of understanding on > my earlier comments? > > I also firmly believe that restricting the definition to simply OS/Net > (such that "OpenSolaris" is equivalent to "the Linux Kernel") is > shortsighted, in that it effectively keeps us from doing anything > other than reinventing Linux Distro Hell. > >> Many distributions could be derived from it. Just as with Linux >> (which is the kernel + really basic libs). >> There is not one single "Linux" distro". > > and that is a serious bug. > >> Why do you think there should be one for "OpenSolaris" (== OS/Net) ? > > Because the balkinization of incompatible Linux Distros makes it > nearly impossible for ISVs to develop, deliver and support applications > for that environment. As a developer, I can't release a product that > runs on Linux - I have to choose between a dozen major distros, package > things up to use several different install mechanisms, test on all of > them, develop work arounds, co-ship modified/updated support packages, > etc etc etc. > > In effect, most ISVs pick redhat and maybe suse or ubuntu, and ignore > the rest. > > Here in the US, we have a historical slogan that fits: > > United, we stand. Divided, we fall. > > >> I think the sub-term "Open" and the desire to create one single >> selected "OpenSolaris" distro are totally contradicting one another. > > > Nobody is saying you can't do whatever you want. What we are saying, > however, is that we, as a community, want to put all our efforts on > creating a kick-ass kernel in a kick-ass distro that shows off all of > its features. Not because we don't like other distros, but because > we want to more than spend all our energy creating yet another distro >> from scratch after another. > > Your perspective is "why standardize on a distro when all that > really matters is the kernel". Mine is "what more could we do > if we had a full distro to build upon, instead of only a kernel?" > Complimentary, but different perspectives. > >> Isn't Solaris 11 the next release anymore? > > To my knowledge, it never has been - this is why we use the name Nevada. > Nobody at Sun has made *any* decisions about the marketing name - much > to many of our annoyance :-) > >> Will the Express line not be continued? > > The indications are no, it will be obsoleted by whatever Indiana becomes. > >> Time for some sleep. > > Aha! Something that we both agree on!!! > > G'night! > > -John > One last thing before the 30 minutes of the following night :-) I can better understand you now, with taking your message from above into account. Express is going to be EOL'ed?? Then it all makes more sense. Maybe we can find some compromise (what a bad word) : A reference thing one level higher than the basic kernel+libs OS/Net stuff. You can have that called "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris", rather than "$NAME OpenSolaris". What do you think? G'night! %martin From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 21:53:11 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:53:11 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> Message-ID: <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> Martin Bochnig wrote: > A) "OpenSolaris" continues to stand for OS/Net, anybody is welcome to > create a distro and call it foo-OpenSolaris [1.] > [1]: When meeting x y z guidelines and passing some future compatibility > test suite (which is hopefully to come) What sort of compatibility story would we have with only OS/Net in common between distros? I don't think OS/Net, alone, is enough: Without Admin/Install, there is no common way to install things Without X, there are no GUI apps Without Java, Without SFW (or some set of Debian or Blastwave or ...) there won't be much Open Source stuff ... without these things at the core, things like Clustering, installs with ZFS root, pre-compiled/configured OSAMPP stacks and the like won't exist either. Neither will commercial ISV produced software like Oracle, Flash, Acrobat and all those other things that users really expect to have. I agree, the definition of OpenSolaris Core includes OS/Net. But, in order for it to be useful to anyone other than a hard core software developer, it needs to include more. That "more" is what I've began to call "OpenSolaris". > B) Sun has ... What Sun chooses to do with its branded products is immaterial to this discussion - I want us (the community) to have a say in what the term OpenSolaris means and how it can be used - I want a set of guidelines that will work for people doing distros here AND for the ones Sun wishes to do. A level playing field, so to speak. -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu Oct 25 21:57:42 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:57:42 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> Message-ID: <472173C6.4020703@Sun.Com> [found this compose window sitting behind everything - sorry it is coming out of sequence - John] Martin Bochnig wrote: > Why didn't they rename SXCR to OpenSXCR back in June 2005? Because, even then some of us (mostly Simon... :-) were fighting against people at Sun who wanted to simply slap "open" in front of Sun's trademarks willy nilly :-) > only see the downloads page. Which was created by grunts like you and me and Derek... Not by some corporate deity... The words that are there were suggested by the people creating the distro, just as your words were used to label MarTuX. > User expectations could have been met quite easily, by just having > renamed SXCR 2++ years ago, to what it is: A reference distro of > OpenSolaris, with misc. closed parts in it (though less and less at that). We (the os.o community) weren't at the point where we were ready to make any such decision, so we punted. That is to say, nobody - including both you and me - stood up and made any decisions, so we all sat around passively letting someone else do it. Fast forward to today, and some of us are trying to improve things. Its not to late to fix things, is it? > I recall Sara asking about into what SXCR should be renamed to (at her > summit-talk). My suggestion would be "OpenSXCR Classic Edition", isn't > that a logical naming approach? Might be, but off-topic for this discussion... > What will you tell a customer when being asked to explain the difference > Solaris vs. OpenSolaris? If this branding proposal goes well, I would hope I could say Solaris is Sun's old proprietary operating environment. OpenSolaris is a new, completely open source operating environment, directly derived from (and compatible with) Sun's Solaris10 enterprise level OS. Several distros of OpenSolaris exist, including MartUX, Indiana and Solaris3.0 -John From brandorr at opensolaris.org Thu Oct 25 22:39:35 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:39:35 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? Message-ID: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing what Sun is going to do. As for Shawn's comments about Solaris being the Billion dollar brand. If Solaris is such a more valuable brand than OpenSolaris, why name the distro OpenSolaris at all? Go with Solaris. I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more valuable brand at this point. Happy, non-disenfranchised community goes a long way towards brand equity. But it will only remain so if Sun doesn't do Sunish things. Although it may seem there are only a few descenting voices, it seems that we have hidden this discussion to a list that won't be seem by Free and Open Source advocates, nor will it be seen by the majority of the users you are going after. (As for Su employees who are following this, I suspect all dissenting voices are keeping their heads down in this environment of repeated layoffs). Let's talk about freeing up the Solaris mark...If Sun is going to insist on changing the definition of OpenSolaris. Oh yeah, John P. mentioned that the current distro folks are totally fine with not being called OpenSolaris. "As evidenced by their OpenSolaris.org distro descriptions" (Which apparently where written by Sun employees, not the distro builders.) I see Martin has stepped in. He doesn't seem to approve of the plan. Why doesn't someone tickle Joerg and see what he has to say, or perhaps the Nexenta folks as well. (I know Moinak is probably cool with Indiana, as his distro provided much of the underpinnings for Indiana's distro constructor, and he has actively been involved in Indiana development, so I can't imagine him not basing Belenix2 on Indiana.) I guess Sun needs to decide what kind of company they want to be. -Brian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brandorr Date: Oct 19, 2007 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [ogb-discuss] Indiana as the OpenSolaris xxxx distro (was Re: [smf-discuss] Review for 6608098) To: John Plocher Cc: Keith M Wesolowski , Governing Board On 10/19/07, John Plocher wrote: > > > Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > >> Think about what you're saying. A CG (by definition likely to be > >> comprised of like-minded people) can make decisions for everyone and, > >> as long as they voted properly, no one else can ever appeal that > >> decision. In what universe does this reading of the Constitution make > >> any sense at all? > > In the words that are written in the constitution that I quoted. > This is what you get when you adopt a constitution that favors state's > rights over centralized government. Like it or not, we are a confederacy, > not a federation or a dictatorship. > > Definitions > Confederation: An association of sovereign states or > communities - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation > > Federation: A form of government in which powers and functions > are divided between a central government and a number > of political subdivisions ... > usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/geography/glossary.htm > > What part of ... > > > 6.1. Powers. The business and affairs of the OpenSolaris Community > > shall be managed by or under the direction of the OpenSolaris Governing > > Board (OGB), which may exercise all such powers granted by the Charter > > for the operation and sustenance of the OpenSolaris Community efforts, > > maintenance of the accepted procedures for making decisions within the > > OpenSolaris Community, and enforcement of those procedures when deemed > > necessary. > > ... says that the OGB has the power to override a CG decision? Is it > under Maintenance of Procedures? Enforcement? Arbitration? > > Furthermore, the Charter specifically excludes the OGB from any > right to decide things relating to Sun's OpenSolaris trademark: > > > 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; ... > > I'm not disagreeing that it would be bad for Sun to do stuff unilaterally > here, because it would be bad - very bad. > > But it would be worse for the OS.o community to self-destruct over an > internal power war between the OGB and a CG. Especially when the > constitution is written in such a state's rights manner. John, I'm not sure that this is what is happening. You have framed this as a a CG decision a number of times in this thread. Where did you get that idea? There isn't any "branding" discussion happening on advocacy-discuss. Whether it is or it isn't the right place for it, it's just not happening, contrary to what you are saying. As far as I can tell, a private Sun internal discussion is happening about how best to approach the branding issue as regards to OpenSolaris. The first time these thoughts were "publicly" presented to the OpenSolaris community, was at the Summit, and only are we starting to discuss the implications. Ian Murdock, who is "Sun's chief operating system platform strategist" wants to see OpenSolaris the distro. (Ian has been telling the press that this is going to happen. He did not consult the community, and seek a consensus on this, before making this commitment. Thus I can only assume that Sun's official position is that there will be a distro called OpenSolaris, and that it will be developed under the Indiana project. (Although some of the development is NOW being done in the open, a number of project goals and design decisions were set to meet Sun's undisclosed business goals). Because Ian said that Sun will make a disto called OpenSolaris, Sun now needs a distro called OpenSolaris. Sun doesn't need to do anything with the community, OGB, CG or otherwise. Involving the community at this point, when it is clear that Sun has already made a decision to use their OpenSolaris trademark in a certain way, seems a bit of a waste of time. I am guessing when you are saying that it is a CG decision and not an OGB or community decision, you mean it is a Sun legal/marketing/executive decision, not an OGB or community. Just so long as we all understand this, I think that can safely put this issue to rest. -Brian P.S. - I know the difference between ****Sun**** and an individual that works for Sun. As "Sun's chief operating system platform strategist", I would say that Ian is qualified to act as an official Sun representative, and anything that he says, unless caveatted, is the "official" Sun policy/position. > -John > > > > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Oct 26 05:38:40 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:38:40 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > For me, this is all boiling down to a very simple decision tree: > > If you want to call your distro /.*OpenSolaris.*/, it > needs to follow the rules for using the OpenSolaris > trademark. > > If you don't want to use the OpenSolaris trademark on > your distro, then you can do whatever you wish. Period. > End of discussion. Schillix, Nexenta, Belinix and Martux, > as well as SX and SXDR all continue as is, completely > unchanged and indifferent to this conversation. It seems that you forgot an important issue: If someone starts to call a single distribution "OpenSolaris", all other OpenSolaris based distributions would need to do the same or at least make it much more obvious that they are also based on OpenSolaris-ON and that the distribution called "OpenSolaris" is no more. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 05:53:37 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:53:37 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > what Sun is going to do. > > As for Shawn's comments about Solaris being the Billion dollar brand. > If Solaris is such a more valuable brand than OpenSolaris, why name > the distro OpenSolaris at all? Go with Solaris. That would make no sense and leads back my earlier comment about market confusion. Solaris is a valuable trademark to Sun for their commercial products. This proposed reference distribution is NOT a commercial release for Sun; it is a release by the OpenSolaris community of an operating system. > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > valuable brand at this point. Happy, non-disenfranchised community Not to Sun's corporate customers I would suspect. > goes a long way towards brand equity. But it will only remain so if > Sun doesn't do Sunish things. Although it may seem there are only a > few descenting voices, it seems that we have hidden this discussion to > a list that won't be seem by Free and Open Source advocates, nor will > it be seen by the majority of the users you are going after. (As for > Su employees who are following this, I suspect all dissenting voices > are keeping their heads down in this environment of repeated layoffs). It isn't hidden; you can already type in words that are found in these conversations and they pop up in Google. The greater FOSS community shouldn't have much say in what is being discussed here anyway; this list, decision, and discussions are for the OpenSolaris community. > Let's talk about freeing up the Solaris mark...If Sun is going to > insist on changing the definition of OpenSolaris. The scope of that trademark is outside the discussion of this community. That is Sun's trademark for their commercial, proprietary operating system. As I mentioned earlier; Sun has a responsibility to their shareholders *first* to protect their valuable trademarks and prevent marketplace confusion. > Why doesn't someone tickle Joerg and see what he has to say, or > perhaps the Nexenta folks as well. (I know Moinak is probably cool > with Indiana, as his distro provided much of the underpinnings for > Indiana's distro constructor, and he has actively been involved in > Indiana development, so I can't imagine him not basing Belenix2 on > Indiana.) > > I guess Sun needs to decide what kind of company they want to be. As I implied earlier; your general comments aren't helpful. A blanket refusal of the entire proposal isn't very helpful because it doesn't help us understand *why* you have a problem with it. Please, please, please take the time to do a commentary on each point in the proposal so we can understand what specific problems that you have. If you really want to convince people, you need a methodical well-reasoned outline of what the specific issues you possibly see coming out the proposal are. The proposed guidelines are found here: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline Please comment; many of us genuinely want to understand what your specific issues are. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 06:03:32 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:03:32 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > > > For me, this is all boiling down to a very simple decision tree: > > > > If you want to call your distro /.*OpenSolaris.*/, it > > needs to follow the rules for using the OpenSolaris > > trademark. > > > > If you don't want to use the OpenSolaris trademark on > > your distro, then you can do whatever you wish. Period. > > End of discussion. Schillix, Nexenta, Belinix and Martux, > > as well as SX and SXDR all continue as is, completely > > unchanged and indifferent to this conversation. > > It seems that you forgot an important issue: > > If someone starts to call a single distribution "OpenSolaris", > all other OpenSolaris based distributions would need to do the same > or at least make it much more obvious that they are also based on > OpenSolaris-ON and that the distribution called "OpenSolaris" is no more. Everyone seems to believe that the proposed guidelines would not allow you to make a distribution called "The OpenSolaris GNOME Laptop Distro" -- that isn't true. If you look at the proposed guidelines ( http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline ); you'll note that as long as you stick with the official components you can do so. Admittedly, what isn't clear to me from that proposed guideline is whether you can add *additional* packages or your own graphical branding. Yes, it is also true that the current community distributions currently wouldn't be able to use the trademark in that way. However, you could call them: "SchilliX - Built with OpenSolaris technology" "Nexenta - Built with OpenSolaris technology" Remember, branding is a privilege; not a requirement. Trademarks don't exist just for the protection of a company or product; they also serve to provide clarity, confidence, and meaning to consumers (users in our case). When a user sees something that uses the OpenSolaris trademark; they're probably going to have certain expectations. I would like to see your comments on each point of the proposed guidelines Jorg when you get a chance: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Oct 26 06:06:54 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:06:54 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <9A980CF8-9E44-4B5B-B579-36079D40233B@Sun.COM> <47202E67.9000705@Sun.Com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? > > > > Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even > > Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). > > Right, but trying to be compatible and actually being compatible are > two different things. The only way without extensive test suite to > verify compatibility is to ensure that the same components, packaging, > etc. are used. As long as we have no compatibility test, a distro can od it's best to achive compatibility but it cannot do more. .... > They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. > > In their documentation, they can point out that they're designed to be > compatible as possible with OpenSolaris, but they cannot claim > compatibility. That's all it is to me... As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also true for Sun initiated distrributions. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 06:11:10 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:11:10 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > What about Nexenta, Martux(Blastwave) and Shillix? > > > > > > Clearly, they are designed to be "compatible" with Solaris. (Even > > > Nexenta has a Solaris personality mode). > > > > Right, but trying to be compatible and actually being compatible are > > two different things. The only way without extensive test suite to > > verify compatibility is to ensure that the same components, packaging, > > etc. are used. > > As long as we have no compatibility test, a distro can od it's best to achive > compatibility but it cannot do more. > > .... > > > They're not being excluded; they just don't meet the compatibility guidelines. > > > > In their documentation, they can point out that they're designed to be > > compatible as possible with OpenSolaris, but they cannot claim > > compatibility. That's all it is to me... > > As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ > distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also > true for Sun initiated distrributions. That's true Joerg, but it isn't fair to the community to make them wait for that to happen. There's nothing that says we can't update the trademark usage guidelines later once we have such a test suite. So perhaps one of the things we can do for now is continue discussing and adjusting the rest of the proposed guidelines and then start a project for a test suite once we have a reference distribution. Once such a thing is done we can revisit and update the proposed guidelines to match that. Remember, we want users to be able to start using the distribution constructor as soon as possible and encourage people to create their own distributions with it. Would that be acceptable? -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From mb1x at gmx.com Fri Oct 26 06:46:49 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:46:49 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071026134649.321740@gmx.net> -------- Original-Message -------- > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:53:37 -0500 > From: "Shawn Walker" > To: Brandorr > CC: "trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org" > Subject: Re: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? > On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > > what Sun is going to do. > > > > As for Shawn's comments about Solaris being the Billion dollar brand. > > If Solaris is such a more valuable brand than OpenSolaris, why name > > the distro OpenSolaris at all? Go with Solaris. > > That would make no sense and leads back my earlier comment about > market confusion. > > Solaris is a valuable trademark to Sun for their commercial products. > > This proposed reference distribution is NOT a commercial release for > Sun; it is a release by the OpenSolaris community of an operating > system. > > > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > > valuable brand at this point. Happy, non-disenfranchised community > > Not to Sun's corporate customers I would suspect. > > > goes a long way towards brand equity. But it will only remain so if > > Sun doesn't do Sunish things. Although it may seem there are only a > > few descenting voices, it seems that we have hidden this discussion to > > a list that won't be seem by Free and Open Source advocates, nor will > > it be seen by the majority of the users you are going after. (As for > > Su employees who are following this, I suspect all dissenting voices > > are keeping their heads down in this environment of repeated layoffs). > > It isn't hidden; you can already type in words that are found in these > conversations and they pop up in Google. > > The greater FOSS community shouldn't have much say in what is being > discussed here anyway; this list, decision, and discussions are for > the OpenSolaris community. > > > Let's talk about freeing up the Solaris mark...If Sun is going to > > insist on changing the definition of OpenSolaris. > > The scope of that trademark is outside the discussion of this > community. That is Sun's trademark for their commercial, proprietary > operating system. > > As I mentioned earlier; Sun has a responsibility to their shareholders > *first* to protect their valuable trademarks and prevent marketplace > confusion. > > > Why doesn't someone tickle Joerg and see what he has to say, or > > perhaps the Nexenta folks as well. (I know Moinak is probably cool > > with Indiana, as his distro provided much of the underpinnings for > > Indiana's distro constructor, and he has actively been involved in > > Indiana development, so I can't imagine him not basing Belenix2 on > > Indiana.) > > > > I guess Sun needs to decide what kind of company they want to be. > > As I implied earlier; your general comments aren't helpful. A blanket > refusal of the entire proposal isn't very helpful because it doesn't > help us understand *why* you have a problem with it. > > Please, please, please take the time to do a commentary on each point > in the proposal so we can understand what specific problems that you > have. He has already done that again, again, again and again! Few people take the time to write detailed, understandable messages of excellence, like Brian Gupta uses to do. Only have a look at his message from 4 days ago, that I have forwarded to Indiana discuss earlier this day! Thanks. Martin > > If you really want to convince people, you need a methodical > well-reasoned outline of what the specific issues you possibly see > coming out the proposal are. > > The proposed guidelines are found here: > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Trademark_usage_and_Branding_guideline > > Please comment; many of us genuinely want to understand what your > specific issues are. > > -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. " --Donald Knuth > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Oct 26 06:46:23 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:46:23 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4721efaf.c8xedBTAc/PA44T8%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > > Why do you think there should be one for "OpenSolaris" (== OS/Net) ? > > Because the balkinization of incompatible Linux Distros makes it > nearly impossible for ISVs to develop, deliver and support applications > for that environment. As a developer, I can't release a product that > runs on Linux - I have to choose between a dozen major distros, package > things up to use several different install mechanisms, test on all of > them, develop work arounds, co-ship modified/updated support packages, > etc etc etc. You cannot prevent this from happening by just using trademark rules. If you like compatibility, you need to build a community that is interested in preventing balkinization. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Oct 26 06:51:19 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:51:19 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > Martin Bochnig wrote: > > A) "OpenSolaris" continues to stand for OS/Net, anybody is welcome to > > create a distro and call it foo-OpenSolaris [1.] > > [1]: When meeting x y z guidelines and passing some future compatibility > > test suite (which is hopefully to come) > > What sort of compatibility story would we have with only OS/Net in > common between distros? I don't think OS/Net, alone, is enough: > > Without Admin/Install, there is no common way to install things > Without X, there are no GUI apps > Without Java, > Without SFW (or some set of Debian or Blastwave or ...) there won't > be much Open Source stuff This is why currently an "OpenSolaris" distro just needs to be based on ON. We may create different rules for the future but I still don't like to see a distro that calls itself just "OpenSolaris". J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Oct 26 07:21:02 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:21:02 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4721f7ce.rIOcQekAqftoGL/e%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ > > distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also > > true for Sun initiated distrributions. > > That's true Joerg, but it isn't fair to the community to make them > wait for that to happen. We should not create a policy that is based on claims like "Sun's distro is always compliant". > Remember, we want users to be able to start using the distribution > constructor as soon as possible and encourage people to create their > own distributions with it. A distribution constructor would only be used if it does not limit people to do what they like to do. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 08:28:21 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:28:21 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > what Sun is going to do. So, lead it where you want it to go. Make a proposal! Don't just sit there and complain. > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > valuable brand at this point. Glad you think so. And, maybe to you, it is. All the more reason for you to suggest how you think we should use it! You obviously don't like my suggestions: 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? no problem, do what you want... 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or "Compatible with OpenSolaris" 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or other phrases that don't imply compatibility. so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of the solution! > But it will only remain so if Sun doesn't do Sunish things. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.... > Oh yeah, John P. mentioned that the current distro folks are totally > fine with not being called OpenSolaris. "As evidenced by their > OpenSolaris.org distro descriptions" (Which apparently where written > by Sun employees, not the distro builders.) I took all the descriptions off of *the distro's own home pages*. I'm not sure how Sun Employees got access to those sites to force their graffiti on the unsuspecting world... > Why doesn't someone Why don't *you*? What do *you* want? Not, what do you think someone else might want... Martin has jumped in and said > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net as well as > I can better understand you now, with taking your message from above into account. > ... > Maybe we can find some compromise (what a bad word) : A reference > thing one level higher than the basic kernel+libs OS/Net stuff. > You can have that called "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris", rather than > "$NAME OpenSolaris". so I wouldn'd write him off as "...doesn't seem to approve of the plan". If you are so dead set against actually contributing a counter proposal, and would rather rail against everything and anything that Sun employees attempt to do, there is probably nothing I can do to make you happy. -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 08:52:25 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:52:25 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > It seems that you forgot an important issue: > > If someone starts to call a single distribution "OpenSolaris", Please show me where in the current proposal-under-seige (ahem, I mean discussion) it allows for any single distribution to do so. There are only two scenarios that I can imagine would lead there: 1) Someone makes a distro that is exactly and only comprised of the "core". 2) Someone disregards these guidelines... It sounds like, from your comments, that you are also in the "OpenSolaris means ON" camp, rather than in the "OpenSolaris is a complete operating environment suitable for deploying 3rd party applications" one. > all other OpenSolaris based distributions would need to do the same > or at least make it much more obvious that they are also based on > OpenSolaris-ON and that the distribution called "OpenSolaris" is no more. What part of my suggestion is causing you problems? > 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? > no problem, do what you want... > > 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? > Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or > "Compatible with OpenSolaris" > > 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? > Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or > "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or > other phrases that don't imply compatibility. It seems to allow exactly what you want - all other OpenSolaris- based distros COULD choose to call them selves either "an OpenSolaris OS" or "Based on OpenSolaris", depending on how compatible they were with the reference. You seem to feel that "the reference" should be "only ON"; I feel it needs to be a bit more. Can we please have a discussion about what that more should be - if anything? -John From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 09:22:42 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:22:42 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <4721efaf.c8xedBTAc/PA44T8%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> <4721efaf.c8xedBTAc/PA44T8%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > > > > Why do you think there should be one for "OpenSolaris" (== OS/Net) ? > > > > Because the balkinization of incompatible Linux Distros makes it > > nearly impossible for ISVs to develop, deliver and support applications > > for that environment. As a developer, I can't release a product that > > runs on Linux - I have to choose between a dozen major distros, package > > things up to use several different install mechanisms, test on all of > > them, develop work arounds, co-ship modified/updated support packages, > > etc etc etc. > > You cannot prevent this from happening by just using trademark rules. You can though to a certain extent; people don't get to call themselves OpenSolaris or use the trademark in certain ways if they're not compatible. That's the beauty of a trademark; it can only be used if it meets the guidelines established by the holder. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 09:24:53 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:24:53 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > > > Martin Bochnig wrote: > > > A) "OpenSolaris" continues to stand for OS/Net, anybody is welcome to > > > create a distro and call it foo-OpenSolaris [1.] > > > [1]: When meeting x y z guidelines and passing some future compatibility > > > test suite (which is hopefully to come) > > > > What sort of compatibility story would we have with only OS/Net in > > common between distros? I don't think OS/Net, alone, is enough: > > > > Without Admin/Install, there is no common way to install things > > Without X, there are no GUI apps > > Without Java, > > Without SFW (or some set of Debian or Blastwave or ...) there won't > > be much Open Source stuff > > This is why currently an "OpenSolaris" distro just needs to be based on ON. But that's almost useless to users who want some level of confidence that their app will run on the various OpenSolaris distributions that will exist. ON by itself doesn't even include a package manager, install program, or other things. > We may create different rules for the future but I still don't like to see > a distro that calls itself just "OpenSolaris". Well Joerg; I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Users are expecting something to be called "OpenSolaris" and I think it's very important that we meet that expectation. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 09:28:28 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:28:28 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <20071026134649.321740@gmx.net> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <20071026134649.321740@gmx.net> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Martin Bochnig wrote: > He has already done that again, again, again and again! > Few people take the time to write detailed, understandable messages of excellence, like Brian Gupta uses to do. > Only have a look at his message from 4 days ago, that I have forwarded to Indiana discuss earlier this day! > No, he has not. That was not a point-by-point commentary on the proposed guidelines. Instead, it was a post that was giving a general perspective without helping me understand what his specific issues were with the guidelines. A single post that gives a point-by-point commentary is necessary to understand which specific parts of the proposal are bad instead of a more general one that tries to refute the entire proposal (from what I see). -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 09:33:07 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:33:07 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <4721f7ce.rIOcQekAqftoGL/e%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4721f7ce.rIOcQekAqftoGL/e%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ > > > distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also > > > true for Sun initiated distrributions. > > > > That's true Joerg, but it isn't fair to the community to make them > > wait for that to happen. > > We should not create a policy that is based on claims like "Sun's distro > is always compliant". Sun doesn't have a distro; the proposed reference distribution is a distribution by the OpenSolaris community initiated by a member of the community that happens to work for Sun. Someone else that was not from Sun and that was from the community could have proposed and started a reference distribution; instead every distribution so far has started their distribution outside of OpenSolaris.org instead of as a project and no one has made a formal proposal to adopt one of those as a reference distribution. The policy does not in any way imply that a distribution by Sun will be the reference distribution. It is talking about the proposed OpenSolaris reference distribution. Even if the first reference distribution is the result of Project Indiana, there is nothing stopping the community from eventually voting to change that or start another new project that becomes the eventual new reference distribution. > > Remember, we want users to be able to start using the distribution > > constructor as soon as possible and encourage people to create their > > own distributions with it. > > A distribution constructor would only be used if it does not limit people > to do what they like to do. Software inherently has limits Joerg. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From storycrafter at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 09:50:59 2007 From: storycrafter at gmail.com (Mark Martin) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:50:59 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? Message-ID: The hijacked thread... On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Martin Bochnig wrote: > > He has already done that again, again, again and again! > > Few people take the time to write detailed, understandable messages of > excellence, like Brian Gupta uses to do. > > Only have a look at his message from 4 days ago, that I have forwarded > to Indiana discuss earlier this day! > > > > A single post that gives a point-by-point commentary is necessary to > understand which specific parts of the proposal are bad instead of a > more general one that tries to refute the entire proposal (from what I > see). I haven't had time yet to go line by line, but I believe at least the "based on" may need some tightening. Case 1: I want to build a set-top box or router or some other network appliance type distribution. I want the ON bits but most likely not ZFS or most other bits. I almost certainly don't want lots of the packaging -- space will probably be a premium and I'll probably be throwing some custom front ends on it. I may not even want the packager Sun wants to use for Indiana. I'm thinking openWrt or similar. Arguably this is more for a particular application use case, but assume some enterprising soul starts a distribution It's like "Plocher Model Train Appliance" but I'm talking extremely stripping things down to the bare minimum + dynamic language stack + ipfilter + custom web scripts. Something that might actually run in 128MB or 64MB and fit on a 32MB CF. Now, because I'm not terribly "compatible", I am limited to the "Built on" or "Built using" terminology. That dilutes the distribution to my mind because of what it really isn't. It's definitely not Linux. It's most certainly not Windows or QNX (now "open") or any other OS. It's "built-on" OpenSolaris. So the onus would be on me to educate the downstream users as to what that means. Well, it's the kernel, and quite a bit of the ON userland. But I stripped out ZFS and the "Indiana" repository packaging and other "add-ons". So I guess it's OpenSolaris--. And hopefully that expectation of what is nominal OpenSolaris is prevalent (I know, I know -- the whole intent of the discussion). Case 2: Would I be prevented from taking FreeBSD (because ZFS already lives there), porting SMF and a few other frameworks over to the ports tree and calling that "built on OpenSolaris Technology"? It's certainly not the ON base. It's not clear that the current wording would forbid this. If it does, it's implicit in the assumption that OpenSolaris Technology = ON + some other stuff we haven't defined. I realize I'm conveniently ignoring license issues for the moment. Substitute *BSD or Linux if that helps. Mark -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. " --Donald Knuth > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Born to the false world, the wanderer, Storyteller, The Pied Piper On a quest for immortality Gathering a troop to find the fantasy -- Nightwish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brandorr at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 10:15:49 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:15:49 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> Updated Usage Guidelines - version DRAFT 0.03 NOT APPROVED FOR USE The intent of this trademark and branding policy is to encourage compatibility among the various distros being developed within the OpenSolaris community. This compatibility is important to users, ISVs and developers; it encompasses both the concepts of "over time" and "across various distros". Being branded with one of the OpenSolaris trademarks implies that the item so branded meets some set of measurable requirements, and meets (or does not meet) certain levels of compatibility. The list of markings that follows is ordered from "most compatible" to "least". John's suggestion [edit] The OpenSolaris ___ Distro If your distro is constructed exactly and exclusively out of one of the OpenSolaris-Community ratified distro recipes, using the unmodified packages from the reference OpenSolaris repository, then you can use the OpenSolaris-xxx branded label associated with that recipe. Examples: The OpenSolaris GNOME Laptop Distro The OpenSolaris KDE Laptop Distro The OpenSolaris Enterprise Distro [edit] ___ - Built on the OpenSolaris ___ Distro If your distro is a strict superset of one or more of the OpenSolaris-Community ratified distro recipes, using the unmodified packages from the OpenSolaris repository for the associated OS.o recipes, then you can use the phrase "Built on", the branded labels associated with those recipes along with a required description of your additions to that recipe. Examples: Built on the OpenSolaris Core Distro with GNOME, KDE, WebServices and Java Built on the OpenSolaris Enterprise Distro with Clustering [edit] ___ - Built with OpenSolaris Technology If your distro uses a modified OS.o recipe, or if it uses a recipe that is not (yet?) ratified, or if you use packages modified from that found in the OpenSolaris repository, then you can use the "Built with" branding. Examples: The Plocher Model Train Appliance - Built with OpenSolaris Technology [edit] Other Items [edit] OpenSolaris The unadorned OpenSolaris name is reserved by the OpenSolaris Community to be used as the name of the OpenSolaris Community itself. It may not be used as the name of any particular distribution, product, service .... [edit] Derivative Code Any derivative of OpenSolaris Community code itself outside of the uses defined above is not entitled to use the OpenSolaris trademark in any way. [edit] Branding is not required Nobody is required to use the OpenSolaris trademark, it is a privilege, not a requirement. Alternatives [edit] Core = OpenSolaris * Compatibility is at the core of the OpenSolaris brand. The trademark OpenSolaris applies to a core[1] set of functionality that is required to exist in a distro. If your distro contains this unmodified functionality, and passes the OpenSolaris Compatibility test[2], then it is allowed to use the OpenSolaris trademark. Examples: * OpenSolaris - for a distro containing only the Core * Belinix OpenSolaris, Indiana OpenSolaris, ... - for distros that are supersets of the unmodified Core [edit] Parking Lot issues [edit] Parking lot item #1: Define Core We need to define what is in this Core. We don't need the definition right now, but we will before we can actually use the mark on a distro. For our immediate need, assume that this Core is less than all of Solaris10, and more than simply ON+bootloader+shell. Need to deal with edge cases such as "x64 doesn't use SPARC OpenBoot, PowerPC uses different/modified low level kernel files", yet all should be able to be in the Core [edit] Parking lot item #2: Define Compatibility Test Suite As above, presume that this is something like "did you build it with the Core recipe using the official OpenSolaris packages?", but with actual for the actual behaviors. [edit] Parking lot item #3: Need guidelines for devicee and appliances [edit] Parking lot item #4: Enthusiest usage What about Business cards, T-Shirts and other enthusiast usage? [edit] Parking lot item #5: Other usage What about Usergroups, Foundations, tradeshow groups, training and consultants? On 10/26/07, John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > > what Sun is going to do. > > So, lead it where you want it to go. Make a proposal! > > Don't just sit there and complain. > > > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > > valuable brand at this point. > > Glad you think so. And, maybe to you, it is. All the more reason for > you to suggest how you think we should use it! > > You obviously don't like my suggestions: > > 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? > no problem, do what you want... > > 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? > Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or > "Compatible with OpenSolaris" > > 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? > Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or > "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or > other phrases that don't imply compatibility. > > so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of > the solution! Proposal: No distro will be named OpenSolaris. The definition of OpenSolaris will not be changed just to suit Sun's marketing needs. I know this isn't a discussion of what is and isn't Sun's prerogative, but you asked for a proposal, and I am asking Sun *NOT* to do something, and I feel that a counterproposal should have a viable alternative. Part of that counterprosal is a name that works. How about naming Sun's new distro "SolarisNG"? > > Oh yeah, John P. mentioned that the current distro folks are totally > > fine with not being called OpenSolaris. "As evidenced by their > > OpenSolaris.org distro descriptions" (Which apparently where written > > by Sun employees, not the distro builders.) > > I took all the descriptions off of *the distro's own home pages*. > I'm not sure how Sun Employees got access to those sites to force > their graffiti on the unsuspecting world... My bad. I was too worked up yesterday. > > Why doesn't someone > > Why don't *you*? What do *you* want? Not, what do you think someone > else might want... I want what everyone else wants. I want to belong to an inclusive open source community, where decisions aren't driven by Sun's undisclosed business needs. John's proposal, as I understand, is that only people/teams that can use the OpenSolaris trademark as a standalone brand, are people/teams that make a product that only consists of Sun's binaries. If the decision to use OpenSolaris as a distro name is for Sun or noone, then I'd rather no one use it. So I guess I don't want OpenSolaris to be the name of any distro. > Martin has jumped in and said > > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net > > as well as > > > I can better understand you now, with taking your message from above into account. > > ... > > Maybe we can find some compromise (what a bad word) : A reference > > thing one level higher than the basic kernel+libs OS/Net stuff. > > You can have that called "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris", rather than > > "$NAME OpenSolaris". > > so I wouldn'd write him off as "...doesn't seem to approve of the plan". Ah, but there is a difference. From what I understand, Martin is proposing something along the lines of: Sun Indiana OpenSolaris [distro/OS], where the key brand is Indiana. This is not the same thing as the "OpenSolaris laptop distro" (Which inevitably would be labeled as "OpenSolaris" in big letters, and laptop distro in tiny, tiny letters.) I want the following distros to coexist: SolarisNG, OpenSolaris Distro - Indiana Belenix, OpenSolaris Distro - SolarisNG with KDE (or whatever Moinak and team want to do) Nexenta, OpenSolaris Distro - A backwards compatible Solaris distro that supports both SYSV and Debian packages, as well as SYSV/Solaris and GNU commands. MartUX, OpenSolaris Distro Shillix, OpenSolaris Distro (Please note the use of the commas. They can be replaced by the word "an" if that makes it clearer for you). > If you are so dead set against actually contributing a counter proposal, > and would rather rail against everything and anything that Sun employees > attempt to do, there is probably nothing I can do to make you happy. The problem is that your current proposal makes a major assumption that basically states that Sun's Indiana project/distro will be known as ****OpenSolaris**** blah blah, come hell or high water. Everything else in the propasal is predicated on that assumption. Thus, a point by point is pretty useless, until that assumption can be agreed upon, or is removed from the proposal. It seems that many in the community seem to feel that the OpenSolaris name should not be bestowed to a [proprietary, closed source] Sun distro. It also seems that many feel that the current definition of OpenSolaris shouldn't change. Currently no distro can use the OpenSolaris trademark as part of their name. I am starting to see the wisdom of that decision by the founders of the community. My proposal boils down to not allowing distros to call themselves OpenSolaris. (At least at this point in time). This obviously would require Sun to name Indiana something other than OpenSolaris. Perhaps SolarisNG? Cheers, Brian > -John -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 10:33:23 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:33:23 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Mark Martin wrote: > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Martin Bochnig wrote: > > > He has already done that again, again, again and again! > > > Few people take the time to write detailed, understandable messages of > excellence, like Brian Gupta uses to do. > > > Only have a look at his message from 4 days ago, that I have forwarded > to Indiana discuss earlier this day! > > > > > > > A single post that gives a point-by-point commentary is necessary to > > understand which specific parts of the proposal are bad instead of a > > more general one that tries to refute the entire proposal (from what I > > see). > > I haven't had time yet to go line by line, but I believe at least the "based > on" may need some tightening. > > Case 1: > I want to build a set-top box or router or some other network appliance type > distribution. I want the ON bits but most likely not ZFS or most other > bits. I almost certainly don't want lots of the packaging -- space will > probably be a premium and I'll probably be throwing some custom front ends > on it. I may not even want the packager Sun wants to use for Indiana. I'm > thinking openWrt or similar. Arguably this is more for a particular > application use case, but assume some enterprising soul starts a > distribution It's like "Plocher Model Train Appliance" but I'm talking > extremely stripping things down to the bare minimum + dynamic language stack > + ipfilter + custom web scripts. Something that might actually run in 128MB > or 64MB and fit on a 32MB CF. > > Now, because I'm not terribly "compatible", I am limited to the "Built on" > or "Built using" terminology. That dilutes the distribution to my mind > because of what it really isn't. It's definitely not Linux. It's most > certainly not Windows or QNX (now "open") or any other OS. It's "built-on" > OpenSolaris. So the onus would be on me to educate the downstream users as > to what that means. Well, it's the kernel, and quite a bit of the ON > userland. But I stripped out ZFS and the "Indiana" repository packaging and > other "add-ons". So I guess it's OpenSolaris--. And hopefully that > expectation of what is nominal OpenSolaris is prevalent (I know, I know -- > the whole intent of the discussion). So what's wrong with being limited to the "Built with" terminology? Your case perfectly fits that usage. You may not want your distribution to be diluted, but the whole point of you being limited to that branding is because your theoretical distribution (no offense) has diluted the original. As you say, you have stripped out so many things, there is almost no guarantee that applications, etc. might continue to work as expected on your distribution. That's kind of the point behind the usage restriction. Even if you were allowed to use "OpenSolaris" in your name the onus would still be on you to educate users that you weren't really a completely compatible distribution. As such, I don't see how being limited to the "built with" terminology puts you at any more of a disadvantage. > Case 2: > Would I be prevented from taking FreeBSD (because ZFS already lives there), > porting SMF and a few other frameworks over to the ports tree and calling > that "built on OpenSolaris Technology"? It's certainly not the ON base. > It's not clear that the current wording would forbid this. If it does, it's > implicit in the assumption that OpenSolaris Technology = ON + some other > stuff we haven't defined. I realize I'm conveniently ignoring license > issues for the moment. Substitute *BSD or Linux if that helps. My understanding is that you could use the "Built with" terminology. However, that's part of what these discussions are for; to help define what the community thinks are reasonable restrictions and different ways in which we can clearly and easily set expectations for users encountering the trademark. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 10:45:01 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:45:01 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > On 10/26/07, John Plocher wrote: > > Brandorr wrote: > > > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > > > what Sun is going to do. > > > > So, lead it where you want it to go. Make a proposal! > > > > Don't just sit there and complain. > > > > > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > > > valuable brand at this point. > > > > Glad you think so. And, maybe to you, it is. All the more reason for > > you to suggest how you think we should use it! > > > > You obviously don't like my suggestions: > > > > 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? > > no problem, do what you want... > > > > 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? > > Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or > > "Compatible with OpenSolaris" > > > > 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? > > Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or > > "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or > > other phrases that don't imply compatibility. > > > > so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of > > the solution! > > Proposal: No distro will be named OpenSolaris. The definition of > OpenSolaris will not be changed just to suit Sun's marketing needs. I First of all, this isn't about suiting "Sun's marketing needs." This is about meeting user expectations and the needs of the OpenSolaris community. Having a reference distribution is about meeting user expectations. Having it named OpenSolaris is about meeting user expectations. > know this isn't a discussion of what is and isn't Sun's prerogative, > but you asked for a proposal, and I am asking Sun *NOT* to do > something, and I feel that a counterproposal should have a viable > alternative. Part of that counterprosal is a name that works. Sun is not involved here other than being owner of a trademark and asking the community to help define the usage guidelines. > How about naming Sun's new distro "SolarisNG"? Sun doesn't have a distro; the community has a distro. What Sun distro are you talking about? Project Indiana is a *proposed* distribution by members of the OpenSolaris community, many of which happen to work for Sun. > > > Why doesn't someone > > > > Why don't *you*? What do *you* want? Not, what do you think someone > > else might want... > > I want what everyone else wants. I want to belong to an inclusive open > source community, where decisions aren't driven by Sun's undisclosed > business needs. > John's proposal, as I understand, is that only people/teams that can > use the OpenSolaris trademark as a standalone brand, are people/teams > that make a product that only consists of Sun's binaries. Wrong. You need to get this idea that Sun is the one behind this; they're not. It's just saying that only the distribution designated as the reference distribution *by the OpenSolaris community* would be called OpenSolaris. The community has the ability to through communities to get a vote to happen to change what the reference distribution is. In addition, there is nothing that says Sun has to be the one to produce the binaries. > If the decision to use OpenSolaris as a distro name is for Sun or > noone, then I'd rather no one use it. So I guess I don't want > OpenSolaris to be the name of any distro. It isn't for Sun or noone. It is for the community's reference distribution that best represents OpenSolaris. > > Martin has jumped in and said > > > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net > > > > as well as > > > > > I can better understand you now, with taking your message from above into account. > > > ... > > > Maybe we can find some compromise (what a bad word) : A reference > > > thing one level higher than the basic kernel+libs OS/Net stuff. > > > You can have that called "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris", rather than > > > "$NAME OpenSolaris". > > > > so I wouldn'd write him off as "...doesn't seem to approve of the plan". > > Ah, but there is a difference. From what I understand, Martin is > proposing something along the lines of: Sun Indiana OpenSolaris > [distro/OS], where the key brand is Indiana. This is not the same > thing as the "OpenSolaris laptop distro" (Which inevitably would be > labeled as "OpenSolaris" in big letters, and laptop distro in tiny, > tiny letters.) Which is wrong. Indiana is not a Sun distribution. Indiana is a distribution proposed by a member of the OpenSolaris community that works for Sun. If someone from Intel had proposed Indiana would you then want to call it the "Intel Indiana OpenSolaris Distro"? > I want the following distros to coexist: > > SolarisNG, OpenSolaris Distro - Indiana > Belenix, OpenSolaris Distro - SolarisNG with KDE (or whatever Moinak > and team want to do) > Nexenta, OpenSolaris Distro - A backwards compatible Solaris distro > that supports both SYSV and Debian packages, as well as SYSV/Solaris > and GNU commands. > MartUX, OpenSolaris Distro > Shillix, OpenSolaris Distro Which is going to be incredibly confusing to users. When I go to Ubuntu.com, I expect to download something called Ubuntu. When I go to FreeBSD.org, I expect to download something called FreeBSD. ...the list goes on. > > If you are so dead set against actually contributing a counter proposal, > > and would rather rail against everything and anything that Sun employees > > attempt to do, there is probably nothing I can do to make you happy. > > The problem is that your current proposal makes a major assumption > that basically states that Sun's Indiana project/distro will be known > as ****OpenSolaris**** blah blah, come hell or high water. Everything > else in the propasal is predicated on that assumption. Thus, a point > by point is pretty useless, until that assumption can be agreed upon, > or is removed from the proposal. The problem with this, again, is that you are portraying the proposed reference distribution as a Sun product; it is not. It is a product of the OpenSolaris community. At this point, the majority of the OpenSolaris community happens to work for Sun. > It seems that many in the community seem to feel that the OpenSolaris > name should not be bestowed to a [proprietary, closed source] Sun > distro. Where has it ever been said that a proprietary, closed source Sun distro would receive the OpenSolaris name? > It also seems that many feel that the current definition of > OpenSolaris shouldn't change. Currently no distro can use the > OpenSolaris trademark as part of their name. I am starting to see the > wisdom of that decision by the founders of the community. Experience has proven that users expect otherwise. > My proposal boils down to not allowing distros to call themselves > OpenSolaris. (At least at this point in time). This obviously would > require Sun to name Indiana something other than OpenSolaris. Perhaps > SolarisNG? A proposal to throw away the proposal isn't much of a proposal. Even if you don't want to allow anyone to use OpenSolaris as their name you still have not properly addressed what you think should be *all of the allowed possible usages* of the trademark and what the possible restrictions might be. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From storycrafter at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 11:57:38 2007 From: storycrafter at gmail.com (Mark Martin) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:57:38 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [osol-discuss] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > > > I want the following distros to coexist: > > > > SolarisNG, OpenSolaris Distro - Indiana > > Belenix, OpenSolaris Distro - SolarisNG with KDE (or whatever Moinak > > and team want to do) > > Nexenta, OpenSolaris Distro - A backwards compatible Solaris distro > > that supports both SYSV and Debian packages, as well as SYSV/Solaris > > and GNU commands. > > MartUX, OpenSolaris Distro > > Shillix, OpenSolaris Distro > > Which is going to be incredibly confusing to users. > > When I go to Ubuntu.com, I expect to download something called Ubuntu. > > When I go to FreeBSD.org, I expect to download something called FreeBSD. > > ...the list goes on. I was thinking something along the lines of: http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/distros.php and http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ Notice that in the first link there's little distinction amongst the distributions except for what's in their description. The list is even rotated (ostensibly to promote "fairness"). Yes, Eclipse ain't an OS, but to my mind, it at least approaches the complexity of distribution we're talking about. And FWIW, Eclipse is not my IDE/platform of choice. :) > -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. " --Donald Knuth > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris.org > Mark -- ------------------------------------------------------ Born to the false world, the wanderer, Storyteller, The Pied Piper On a quest for immortality Gathering a troop to find the fantasy -- Nightwish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brandorr at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 12:03:57 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:03:57 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710261203v360f09baj19d904590eaf27be@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > > On 10/26/07, John Plocher wrote: > > > Brandorr wrote: > > > > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > > > > what Sun is going to do. > > > > > > So, lead it where you want it to go. Make a proposal! > > > > > > Don't just sit there and complain. > > > > > > > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > > > > valuable brand at this point. > > > > > > Glad you think so. And, maybe to you, it is. All the more reason for > > > you to suggest how you think we should use it! > > > > > > You obviously don't like my suggestions: > > > > > > 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? > > > no problem, do what you want... > > > > > > 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? > > > Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or > > > "Compatible with OpenSolaris" > > > > > > 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? > > > Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or > > > "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or > > > other phrases that don't imply compatibility. > > > > > > so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of > > > the solution! > > > > Proposal: No distro will be named OpenSolaris. The definition of > > OpenSolaris will not be changed just to suit Sun's marketing needs. I > > First of all, this isn't about suiting "Sun's marketing needs." This > is about meeting user expectations and the needs of the OpenSolaris > community. Having a reference distribution is about meeting user > expectations. Having it named OpenSolaris is about meeting user > expectations. It is 100% about Sun's marketing needs. To think otherwise is completely naive > > know this isn't a discussion of what is and isn't Sun's prerogative, > > but you asked for a proposal, and I am asking Sun *NOT* to do > > something, and I feel that a counterproposal should have a viable > > alternative. Part of that counterprosal is a name that works. > > Sun is not involved here other than being owner of a trademark and > asking the community to help define the usage guidelines. Really? Sun is basically trying to figure out how to call their distro OpenSolaris. When I say Sun's distro, I mean the distro that was speced out, prototyped and developed (for most of it's life at this point) behind Sun firewalls. This distro does have proprietary closed source bits. (Last I checked they haven't been removed yet). Sun has made no indication that "Open"Solaris will be 100% open source, even though article II of the constitution states that any OpenSolaris software must be 100% opensource. It's as much a Sun distro as SXCE is. It's also just as much OpenSolaris as SXCE is. > > How about naming Sun's new distro "SolarisNG"? > > Sun doesn't have a distro; the community has a distro. What Sun distro > are you talking about? Project Indiana is a *proposed* distribution by > members of the OpenSolaris community, many of which happen to work for > Sun. > > > > > Why doesn't someone > > > > > > Why don't *you*? What do *you* want? Not, what do you think someone > > > else might want... > > > > I want what everyone else wants. I want to belong to an inclusive open > > source community, where decisions aren't driven by Sun's undisclosed > > business needs. > > > John's proposal, as I understand, is that only people/teams that can > > use the OpenSolaris trademark as a standalone brand, are people/teams > > that make a product that only consists of Sun's binaries. > > Wrong. You need to get this idea that Sun is the one behind this; > they're not. It's just saying that only the distribution designated as > the reference distribution *by the OpenSolaris community* would be > called OpenSolaris. Huh? If not Sun and Sun management, then whom? > The community has the ability to through communities to get a vote to > happen to change what the reference distribution is. In addition, > there is nothing that says Sun has to be the one to produce the > binaries. > > > If the decision to use OpenSolaris as a distro name is for Sun or > > noone, then I'd rather no one use it. So I guess I don't want > > OpenSolaris to be the name of any distro. > > It isn't for Sun or noone. It is for the community's reference > distribution that best represents OpenSolaris. No it isn't. How can it be the community's reference distro if no one has had a chance to evaluate it against other candidates? > > > Martin has jumped in and said > > > > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net > > > > > > as well as > > > > > > > I can better understand you now, with taking your message from above into account. > > > > ... > > > > Maybe we can find some compromise (what a bad word) : A reference > > > > thing one level higher than the basic kernel+libs OS/Net stuff. > > > > You can have that called "Sun $NAME OpenSolaris", rather than > > > > "$NAME OpenSolaris". > > > > > > so I wouldn'd write him off as "...doesn't seem to approve of the plan". > > > > Ah, but there is a difference. From what I understand, Martin is > > proposing something along the lines of: Sun Indiana OpenSolaris > > [distro/OS], where the key brand is Indiana. This is not the same > > thing as the "OpenSolaris laptop distro" (Which inevitably would be > > labeled as "OpenSolaris" in big letters, and laptop distro in tiny, > > tiny letters.) > > Which is wrong. Indiana is not a Sun distribution. Indiana is a > distribution proposed by a member of the OpenSolaris community that > works for Sun. If someone from Intel had proposed Indiana would you > then want to call it the "Intel Indiana OpenSolaris Distro"? "This is wrong". On what basis are you making that claim? If the distro in question was a) proposed by intel, b) mostly developed behind Intel firewalls, and c) designed behind Intel firewalls and/or d) included prprietary Intel source code, I'd have to say it can be "Intel Indiana OpenSolaris distro" (I don't think it's a good name though).. > > I want the following distros to coexist: > > > > SolarisNG, OpenSolaris Distro - Indiana > > Belenix, OpenSolaris Distro - SolarisNG with KDE (or whatever Moinak > > and team want to do) > > Nexenta, OpenSolaris Distro - A backwards compatible Solaris distro > > that supports both SYSV and Debian packages, as well as SYSV/Solaris > > and GNU commands. > > MartUX, OpenSolaris Distro > > Shillix, OpenSolaris Distro > > Which is going to be incredibly confusing to users. I think it's pretty clear. I have faith in our users.. > When I go to Ubuntu.com, I expect to download something called Ubuntu. > > When I go to FreeBSD.org, I expect to download something called FreeBSD. > > ...the list goes on. When you go to Linux.org and BSD.org, do you expect to be able to download something called Linux or BSD? > > > If you are so dead set against actually contributing a counter proposal, > > > and would rather rail against everything and anything that Sun employees > > > attempt to do, there is probably nothing I can do to make you happy. > > > > The problem is that your current proposal makes a major assumption > > that basically states that Sun's Indiana project/distro will be known > > as ****OpenSolaris**** blah blah, come hell or high water. Everything > > else in the propasal is predicated on that assumption. Thus, a point > > by point is pretty useless, until that assumption can be agreed upon, > > or is removed from the proposal. > > The problem with this, again, is that you are portraying the proposed > reference distribution as a Sun product; it is not. It is a product of > the OpenSolaris community. At this point, the majority of the > OpenSolaris community happens to work for Sun. Well, it seems Sun marketing has at least one person fooled. > > It seems that many in the community seem to feel that the OpenSolaris > > name should not be bestowed to a [proprietary, closed source] Sun > > distro. > > Where has it ever been said that a proprietary, closed source Sun > distro would receive the OpenSolaris name? Go talk to the Indiana developers. > > It also seems that many feel that the current definition of > > OpenSolaris shouldn't change. Currently no distro can use the > > OpenSolaris trademark as part of their name. I am starting to see the > > wisdom of that decision by the founders of the community. > > Experience has proven that users expect otherwise. Experience has shown that Sun executives are actively muddying the water, by making naming promises before they have been agreed to by the community. For that matter the whole Indiana as OpenSolaris thing was told to the press before being raised with the community. Not only that, since then, the press have been repeatedly told that Indiana will be "OpenSolaris". I don't know how you can look at Indiana as anything other than Sun's distro. > > My proposal boils down to not allowing distros to call themselves > > OpenSolaris. (At least at this point in time). This obviously would > > require Sun to name Indiana something other than OpenSolaris. Perhaps > > SolarisNG? > > A proposal to throw away the proposal isn't much of a proposal. > > Even if you don't want to allow anyone to use OpenSolaris as their > name you still have not properly addressed what you think should be > *all of the allowed possible usages* of the trademark and what the > possible restrictions might be. I have, and the discussions were all "tabled" or "parking lotted". Take compatibility for example. The proposal states that we follow the Sun recipe.(I mean "community recipe"). Currently the recipe, is a file list of binaries to download from Sun's servers. Someone can't compile their own distro from source, and make a "compatible distro". A compatibility test, that says, "verify that this is the same exact set of bits" is an audit, not a compatibility test. You are defining compatibility in such a way that only the thing being tested against can be considered compatible. Take for example x86. Intel defined x86, and AMD made a compatible implementation, that was not neccesarily the same set of bits. It is still binary compatible. Compaq, made an IBM PC compatible machine. As an example of real world Solaris compatibility look at Transient's work making Sparc Solaris binaries run on Linux. (I haven't looked too closely, but I think we might be able to declare this is binary compatible.) Currently I can take Blastwave packages compiled for Solaris 8, and install and run them on Solaris 8, Solaris 9, Solaris 10, SX[CD]E b1-75, Nexenta, Martux, etc. Are these distros incompatible or compatible? A compatibility test might consist of a installing and running a given set of SYSV packages, plus running a slew of OS commands to verify that the behavior came out as expected. (There are 1500+ packages in Blastwave, maybe we can somehow leverage their packages to build a compatibility suite). Before you say there is no way to guarantee compatibility between different Solaris builds, I'd say that it depends on what you mean by guarantee. But then again this whole compatibility discussion, predicates that as a community we have consensus on a need for an OpenSolaris reference distro. I don't recall any community vote saying that need exists. How can we write guidelines, presuming the existence of such a beast? -Brian > -- > Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst > binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ > > "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. " --Donald Knuth > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 12:47:06 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:47:06 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710261203v360f09baj19d904590eaf27be@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710261203v360f09baj19d904590eaf27be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Brandorr wrote: > > > On 10/26/07, John Plocher wrote: > > > > Brandorr wrote: > > > > > It seems this discussion is not leading anywhere. And Sun is doing > > > > > what Sun is going to do. > > > > > > > > So, lead it where you want it to go. Make a proposal! > > > > > > > > Don't just sit there and complain. > > > > > > > > > I'll tell you why. It's a falicy, OpenSolaris is actually the more > > > > > valuable brand at this point. > > > > > > > > Glad you think so. And, maybe to you, it is. All the more reason for > > > > you to suggest how you think we should use it! > > > > > > > > You obviously don't like my suggestions: > > > > > > > > 1) Don't wish to use the name /.*OpenSolaris.*/ ? > > > > no problem, do what you want... > > > > > > > > 2) Wish to use it, and are "compatible"? > > > > Use "___, an OpenSolaris Operating System" or > > > > "Compatible with OpenSolaris" > > > > > > > > 3) Wish to use it, and aren't "compatible"? > > > > Use "Built on OpenSolaris" or > > > > "Built with OpenSolaris Technology" or > > > > other phrases that don't imply compatibility. > > > > > > > > so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of > > > > the solution! > > > > > > Proposal: No distro will be named OpenSolaris. The definition of > > > OpenSolaris will not be changed just to suit Sun's marketing needs. I > > > > First of all, this isn't about suiting "Sun's marketing needs." This > > is about meeting user expectations and the needs of the OpenSolaris > > community. Having a reference distribution is about meeting user > > expectations. Having it named OpenSolaris is about meeting user > > expectations. > > It is 100% about Sun's marketing needs. To think otherwise is completely naive That's a rather subjective way of putting it; one you haven't justified. Please explain to me how this is not abut meeting Sun's marketing needs in detail. Please explain to me why the development of a set of usage guidelines for a trademark that represents the community isn't in the community's interests. > > > know this isn't a discussion of what is and isn't Sun's prerogative, > > > but you asked for a proposal, and I am asking Sun *NOT* to do > > > something, and I feel that a counterproposal should have a viable > > > alternative. Part of that counterprosal is a name that works. > > > > Sun is not involved here other than being owner of a trademark and > > asking the community to help define the usage guidelines. > > Really? Sun is basically trying to figure out how to call their distro > OpenSolaris. When I say Sun's distro, I mean the distro that was > speced out, prototyped and developed (for most of it's life at this > point) behind Sun firewalls. This distro does have proprietary closed Considering how short that life has been, it wasn't behind any walls very long. > source bits. (Last I checked they haven't been removed yet). Sun has What proprietary, closed source bits are you talking about? If you're talking about i18n and the sparc dissasembler, I'm sure you know that these are the process of being replaced. What specific bits are you talking about? The community and Sun's goal has been to replace these few remaining bits. Even if these few bits are closed and Sun has no legal right to open them, they at least have secured the right others to redistribute them. I don't see how you can have any reasonable expectation beyond that. > made no indication that "Open"Solaris will be 100% open source, even > though article II of the constitution states that any OpenSolaris > software must be 100% opensource. Actually, it says: "All software produced by the OpenSolaris Community shall be licensed to the public free of charge under one or more open source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative." Note that some of the software that is closed right now was not produced by the OpenSolaris community. It was produced by Sun and third parties or by third parties alone which is why it is not open source. > It's as much a Sun distro as SXCE is. It's also just as much > OpenSolaris as SXCE is. How so? > > Wrong. You need to get this idea that Sun is the one behind this; > > they're not. It's just saying that only the distribution designated as > > the reference distribution *by the OpenSolaris community* would be > > called OpenSolaris. > > Huh? If not Sun and Sun management, then whom? Again, Sun employees are part of the OpenSolaris community. They have no more voting rights than we do. If this was being purely driven by Sun management, then why would they bother asking us anything at all? Why would they give the community a chance to be involved in the process of determining usage guidelines? > > The community has the ability to through communities to get a vote to > > happen to change what the reference distribution is. In addition, > > there is nothing that says Sun has to be the one to produce the > > binaries. > > > > > If the decision to use OpenSolaris as a distro name is for Sun or > > > noone, then I'd rather no one use it. So I guess I don't want > > > OpenSolaris to be the name of any distro. > > > > It isn't for Sun or noone. It is for the community's reference > > distribution that best represents OpenSolaris. > > No it isn't. How can it be the community's reference distro if no one > has had a chance to evaluate it against other candidates? No other candidates have made a formal proposal to set themselves as the reference distribution. Since Indiana is the only project started so far by anyone connected to the community, it has the best chance of winning. If you want to see another distribution "win", then you need to see that formal project is started and it has a chance to get chosen as the reference distribution. As it was mentioned at the summit, the OpenSolaris community is largely a meritocracy; the folks doing they work get to make most of the decisions. If you want to see something different happen, encourage others to work to see that happen. > > Which is wrong. Indiana is not a Sun distribution. Indiana is a > > distribution proposed by a member of the OpenSolaris community that > > works for Sun. If someone from Intel had proposed Indiana would you > > then want to call it the "Intel Indiana OpenSolaris Distro"? > > "This is wrong". On what basis are you making that claim? If the > distro in question was a) proposed by intel, b) mostly developed > behind Intel firewalls, and c) designed behind Intel firewalls and/or > d) included prprietary Intel source code, I'd have to say it can be > "Intel Indiana OpenSolaris distro" (I don't think it's a good name > though).. b) and c) and d) are not fair or reasonable for reasons I already explained above. > > Which is going to be incredibly confusing to users. > > I think it's pretty clear. I have faith in our users.. Then you haven't been reading slashdot or OSNews much every time a new Solaris Express release comes out. > > When I go to Ubuntu.com, I expect to download something called Ubuntu. > > > > When I go to FreeBSD.org, I expect to download something called FreeBSD. > > > > ...the list goes on. > > When you go to Linux.org and BSD.org, do you expect to be able to > download something called Linux or BSD? It all depends on the users of the target audience. For whatever reason, users don't have that expectation with Liunx.org or BSD.org The reason is probably that Linux didn't start with a centralised community. We did. There is no one site the represents the Linux community. There is one site that represents the OpenSolaris community. That makes user expectations wildly different. > > The problem with this, again, is that you are portraying the proposed > > reference distribution as a Sun product; it is not. It is a product of > > the OpenSolaris community. At this point, the majority of the > > OpenSolaris community happens to work for Sun. > > Well, it seems Sun marketing has at least one person fooled. I really don't appreciate the personal insinuation. The facts are that most of the voting OpenSolaris community members are from Sun; as such people are always going to be able to accuse Sun of making the decisions. However, it should be quite obvious by now that most Sun engineers do not "tow the company line." > > > It seems that many in the community seem to feel that the OpenSolaris > > > name should not be bestowed to a [proprietary, closed source] Sun > > > distro. > > > > Where has it ever been said that a proprietary, closed source Sun > > distro would receive the OpenSolaris name? > > Go talk to the Indiana developers. I have; I have never heard anything about this. > > > It also seems that many feel that the current definition of > > > OpenSolaris shouldn't change. Currently no distro can use the > > > OpenSolaris trademark as part of their name. I am starting to see the > > > wisdom of that decision by the founders of the community. > > > > Experience has proven that users expect otherwise. > > Experience has shown that Sun executives are actively muddying the > water, by making naming promises before they have been agreed to by > the community. For that matter the whole Indiana as OpenSolaris thing > was told to the press before being raised with the community. Not > only that, since then, the press have been repeatedly told that > Indiana will be "OpenSolaris". > > I don't know how you can look at Indiana as anything other than Sun's distro. Because people that aren't from Sun have contributed to it. That's how I can look at it as something other than Sun's distro. If it was truly just Sun's distro; why have a summit? Why bother asking for anyone else's input? Why bother listening to users? Why spend months trying to get people to be involved in the decisions being made? Why not just decide it all behind closed doors after a year of closed work (as you claim) and just launch the new item? I can't believe you think there is a vast conspiracy at work here. > > Even if you don't want to allow anyone to use OpenSolaris as their > > name you still have not properly addressed what you think should be > > *all of the allowed possible usages* of the trademark and what the > > possible restrictions might be. > > I have, and the discussions were all "tabled" or "parking lotted". > Take compatibility for example. The proposal states that we follow the > Sun recipe.(I mean "community recipe"). Currently the recipe, is a > file list of binaries to download from Sun's servers. Someone can't > compile their own distro from source, and make a "compatible distro". It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you constantly take small snipes at Sun. No, someone can't currently compile their own distro from source and *claim* compatability because we currently have no way to verify that it is actually compatible. It is of benefit to users that they *know* something is compatible for certain. > A compatibility test, that says, "verify that this is the same exact > set of bits" is an audit, not a compatibility test. You are defining > compatibility in such a way that only the thing being tested against > can be considered compatible. Take for example x86. Intel defined x86, > and AMD made a compatible implementation, that was not neccesarily the > same set of bits. It is still binary compatible. Compaq, made an IBM > PC compatible machine. AMD has licensing agreements with Intel so that they could use certain trademarks and technology in certain ways. So it's not the same. > As an example of real world Solaris compatibility look at Transient's > work making Sparc Solaris binaries run on Linux. (I haven't looked too > closely, but I think we might be able to declare this is binary > compatible.) > > Currently I can take Blastwave packages compiled for Solaris 8, and > install and run them on Solaris 8, Solaris 9, Solaris 10, SX[CD]E > b1-75, Nexenta, Martux, etc. Are these distros incompatible or > compatible? Who knows for certain without a verifiable compatibility test. The applications might work, they might not. > A compatibility test might consist of a installing and running a given > set of SYSV packages, plus running a slew of OS commands to verify > that the behavior came out as expected. (There are 1500+ packages in > Blastwave, maybe we can somehow leverage their packages to build a > compatibility suite). > > Before you say there is no way to guarantee compatibility between > different Solaris builds, I'd say that it depends on what you mean by > guarantee. I haven't said that, nor do I plan to. Obviously there's a POSIX test suite to verify compatibility so the same could be done here. > But then again this whole compatibility discussion, predicates that as > a community we have consensus on a need for an OpenSolaris reference > distro. I don't recall any community vote saying that need exists. How > can we write guidelines, presuming the existence of such a beast? Actually, if you go back to the last OpenSolaris OGB election, you'll note that compatibility was a big topic in the OpenSolaris community. As a result, I think it's a logical conclusion that users like compatibility and feel better when they have their expectations met. Just as users like to be able to go the store and buy a game or application and know that is supposed to run on their copy of Windows Vista according to claims by the manufacturer because it says "Made for Windows Vista." It's also valuable to developers like me who want to be able to build an application on a single OpenSolaris distribution and be able to guarantee that it should run without modification on any other distribution that claims to be compatible. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From chris.mahan at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 14:29:23 2007 From: chris.mahan at gmail.com (Chris Mahan) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:29:23 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution Message-ID: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> I think the distinction needs to be made between the distribution name, the kernel/base system, and the included userland stuff. I look at Red hat, and I see: Red Hat Enterprise Linux I look at Fedora: Fedora. With the explanation: Fedora is a Linux-based operating system... I look at Suse, I see: Suse Linux Enterprise I look at Mandriva: I see Mandriva Linux One 2008 I look at Debian, I see Debian GNU/Linux, with a pretty simple explanation right on the front page: "Debian is a freeoperating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project ; hence the name GNU/Linux." I look at ubuntu, I see: Ubuntu 7.10. Interestingly, the word Linux does NOT appear anywhere on http://www.ubuntu.com/ Now, there's plenty other examples. What I see, though, is diversity. I've had everything above this in a draft email for a few days, but I've been watching the list with mild interest. I've got to say that as far as I can tell, Solaris is important to Sun Inc. commercially, and OpenSolaris is tied to Sun, so Sun will want to retain a controlling interest in OpenSolaris because it has a commercial stake in not diluting the Solaris brand. As a result, the rules concerning OpenSolaris will be, well, stricter than many would like. I then see that there will be the "official" distros and various other things that use OpenSolaris openly and as part of their name, for example: The OpenSolaris Magazine, the OpenSolaris Firewall Application, the OpenSolaris Home Storage System, the OpenSolaris Personal Entertainment system, etc. And then there will be the derivatives that include the OpenSolaris trademark, such as (and there are completely fictitious): "RedDog, built on OpenSolaris", "KOS KDE with OpenSolaris", Yarislav, a GNU/OpenSolaris distribution". Finally, there will be the non-obvious: Utica System, YellowMoon OS, GoogleOS (wildly speculative), Nokia Advanced Mobile System, YoWazzup Uptime Grand Master (YUGM), and my personal favorite: ONL (ONL's Not Linux) I think the trend so far is in the middle. I think things would get very interesting if they went to the third option. I would install ONL just for kicks. For more funky names of Distros: see http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity, look at 1 month column, Solaris: 54th, Nexenta: 60th, BeleniX: 114th, ShilliX: 211th. MartUX, not on list. There's a great diversity of use of the Linux brand, many of which I think Sun would consider too amateurish in the mind of heavy-duty corporate customers. My opinion, leave OpenSolaris as a footnote. People that know about Solaris already know how to go to www.sun.com. For people that don't, the brand matters not. In my opinion, another name should be picked, or any distro should call themselves whatever they want. As long as Sun sells Solaris-related stuff, Sun will want to control the image of the Solaris trademark, and by extension, the OpenSolaris trademark. -- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/ chris_mahan at yahoo.com chris.mahan at gmail.com cell 818.943.1850 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 14:37:36 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:37:36 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > I think the distinction needs to be made between the distribution name, the > kernel/base system, and the included userland stuff. > > I look at Red hat, and I see: Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > I look at Fedora: Fedora. With the explanation: Fedora is a Linux-based > operating system... > > I look at Suse, I see: Suse Linux Enterprise > > I look at Mandriva: I see Mandriva Linux One 2008 > > I look at Debian, I see Debian GNU/Linux, with a pretty simple explanation > right on the front page: > "Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating > system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer > run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but > most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name > GNU/Linux." > > I look at ubuntu, I see: Ubuntu 7.10. Interestingly, the word Linux does NOT > appear anywhere on http://www.ubuntu.com/ Actually, it does: "Ubuntu is a community developed, *linux*-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more." > My opinion, leave OpenSolaris as a footnote. People that know about Solaris > already know how to go to www.sun.com. For people that don't, the brand > matters not. > > In my opinion, another name should be picked, or any distro should call > themselves whatever they want. > > As long as Sun sells Solaris-related stuff, Sun will want to control the > image of the Solaris trademark, and by extension, the OpenSolaris trademark. The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel using the GNU operating system. It also started without a pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux community also lacks a central website or place that represents their community. In contrast, the OpenSolaris project started out with an established userbase, codebase, and as the source code and binary components for a complete operating system instead of just a kernel. We also have an official community that represents it, a governance model, etc. I'm going to assume that when you say that OpenSolaris should be left as a footnote, that you mean that no distribution should be called OpenSolaris, but there should be defined uses of the trademark made available just as there are certain usages of the Linux trademark that have been forbidden. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From chris.mahan at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 14:57:36 2007 From: chris.mahan at gmail.com (Chris Mahan) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:57:36 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4d9b53db0710261457q5b8c0e39u7f797fad1e825465@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > Users are > expecting something to be called "OpenSolaris" and I think it's very > important that we meet that expectation. I seriously doubt that. Typical users have problems to solve. What they're looking for are solutions, not "OpenSolaris". The fact that they ended up at opensolaris.org means that they've already done most of their homework. From there, they don't want a one-size fits all solution. If that's what they want, OS X or Windows XPsp2 will work just fine for them. What they want is a solution to their problem. And if the solution to their problem is hardnOSed (an easy to install desktop OS based on OpenSolaris with GNU userland and your choice of Enlightenment, Gnome, KDE and fluxbox windows managers with a modern package manager), then they're going to look for the hardnOSed iso download link. Corporate developers with a budget are getting Solaris 10 with a support contract. 17 year old geeks with more electronics than a modern car who think mySpace is sooo-2-years-ago and who barely like facebook, do not care, at all, AT ALL, about the OpenSolaris brand. At all. They are much more likely to pick a distro with a name that sounds like a band name whose tracks they downloaded off p2p rather than a polished 20 year-old corporate brainstorm-generated name. If this was a proprietary OS package, I would agree with you. However, it's not. -- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/ chris_mahan at yahoo.com chris.mahan at gmail.com cell 818.943.1850 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmink at sun.com Fri Oct 26 15:06:51 2007 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:51 -0600 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261457q5b8c0e39u7f797fad1e825465@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4d9b53db0710261457q5b8c0e39u7f797fad1e825465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <088B1D9C-EFCE-4542-A073-DDE0A9AB65D3@sun.com> On Oct 26, 2007, at 15:57, Chris Mahan wrote: > If this was a proprietary OS package, I would agree with you. > However, it's not. If the goal of the OpenSolaris community were to remain a haven for hobbyists, I would agree with you. But it is not, and I do not. As I just said to Brian, "OpenSolaris" is so clearly the name of an operating system to the informed outsider that it seems obvious we should be discussing how to make it so rather than endlessly expending stop-energy to prevent it. S. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris.mahan at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 15:11:52 2007 From: chris.mahan at gmail.com (Chris Mahan) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:11:52 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > > I think the distinction needs to be made between the distribution name, > the > > kernel/base system, and the included userland stuff. > > > > I look at Red hat, and I see: Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > > > I look at Fedora: Fedora. With the explanation: Fedora is a Linux-based > > operating system... > > > > I look at Suse, I see: Suse Linux Enterprise > > > > I look at Mandriva: I see Mandriva Linux One 2008 > > > > I look at Debian, I see Debian GNU/Linux, with a pretty simple > explanation > > right on the front page: > > "Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating > > system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your > computer > > run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but > > most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name > > GNU/Linux." > > > > I look at ubuntu, I see: Ubuntu 7.10. Interestingly, the word Linux does > NOT > > appear anywhere on http://www.ubuntu.com/ > > Actually, it does: > > "Ubuntu is a community developed, *linux*-based operating system that > is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the > applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and > spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more." you're right. I was looking at the product page: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu > My opinion, leave OpenSolaris as a footnote. People that know about > Solaris > > already know how to go to www.sun.com. For people that don't, the brand > > matters not. > > > > In my opinion, another name should be picked, or any distro should call > > themselves whatever they want. > > > > As long as Sun sells Solaris-related stuff, Sun will want to control the > > image of the Solaris trademark, and by extension, the OpenSolaris > trademark. > > The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel > using the GNU operating system. It also started without a > pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux > community also lacks a central website or place that represents their > community. In my opinion, that's not a flaw, but an ecological advantage. In contrast, the OpenSolaris project started out with an established > userbase, codebase, and as the source code and binary components for a > complete operating system instead of just a kernel. We also have an > official community that represents it, a governance model, etc. Then why did it ever need to get out of the firewall? Because that model, thanks in part to Linux, became non-sustainable in the long term. So something had to be done. I suggest that what OpenSolaris needs to do is shed its corporate past, from its bureaucratic nature to its name, even. I'm going to assume that when you say that OpenSolaris should be left > as a footnote, that you mean that no distribution should be called > OpenSolaris, but there should be defined uses of the trademark made > available just as there are certain usages of the Linux trademark that > have been forbidden. Yes, but from what I know of Sun as an outsider, those uses will be a lot more restrictive than those of the Linux trademark. Of course, that's all speculation on my part. Sun may surprise me yet. But I'm not holding my breath. I like to expect the best, but I also find it wise to prepare for the worst. -- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/ chris_mahan at yahoo.com chris.mahan at gmail.com cell 818.943.1850 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 15:14:19 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:14:19 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261457q5b8c0e39u7f797fad1e825465@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4d9b53db0710261457q5b8c0e39u7f797fad1e825465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > > > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > Users are > > expecting something to be called "OpenSolaris" and I think it's very > > important that we meet that expectation. > > > I seriously doubt that. Typical users have problems to solve. What they're > looking for are solutions, not "OpenSolaris". As others have pointed out, part of the OpenSolaris trademark is "Solaris" which implies an operating system related thing. In addition, if you look at various posts on OSNews, Slashdot, ZDNet, et al. you would see that folks have posted several times confused by the naming usage and the lack of something that is clearly the right thing to download. They very much are looking for something that is clearly the product or result of the OpenSolaris community and naming something that helps them "find a solution." > The fact that they ended up at opensolaris.org means that they've already > done most of their homework. From there, they don't want a one-size fits all No way; in many cases it means that their favourite news website just happened to post a link to opensolaris.org. > solution. If that's what they want, OS X or Windows XPsp2 will work just > fine for them. What they want is a solution to their problem. And if the > solution to their problem is hardnOSed (an easy to install desktop OS based > on OpenSolaris with GNU userland and your choice of Enlightenment, Gnome, > KDE and fluxbox windows managers with a modern package manager), then > they're going to look for the hardnOSed iso download link. Some users are just curious about what something is and will try it; not because they're looking for a particular solution. Not every user that uses a particular operating system is driven by need; as an example, many people use Windows because it is what came with their computer. > Corporate developers with a budget are getting Solaris 10 with a support > contract. 17 year old geeks with more electronics than a modern car who > think mySpace is sooo-2-years-ago and who barely like facebook, do not care, > at all, AT ALL, about the OpenSolaris brand. At all. They are much more They may not care about the brand, but they do want something obvious when they click on the Download button on OpenSolaris.org and from all indications these people are the ones complaining about what the heck they're supposed to do once they click on the Download button on OpenSolaris.org right now. > likely to pick a distro with a name that sounds like a band name whose > tracks they downloaded off p2p rather than a polished 20 year-old corporate > brainstorm-generated name. I would like to believe that that is not a reason to prevent a professionally marketed name from being used. People used RedHat Linux for years despite its obvious corporate origins. > If this was a proprietary OS package, I would agree with you. However, it's > not. The OpenSolaris project should be here to meet both professional and personal goals. One advantage we have with professional branding is that more inroads to business are possible than some of the distributions that have ridiculous naming. You would probably be surprised at how many business have chosen RedHat Linux over that "ubuntu" thing just because the name sounded foreign to them. You may think stories like that are fictional, but they happen a lot. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 15:18:15 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:18:15 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > In contrast, the OpenSolaris project started out with an established > > userbase, codebase, and as the source code and binary components for a > > complete operating system instead of just a kernel. We also have an > > official community that represents it, a governance model, etc. > > Then why did it ever need to get out of the firewall? Because that model, > thanks in part to Linux, became non-sustainable in the long term. So > something had to be done. I suggest that what OpenSolaris needs to do is > shed its corporate past, from its bureaucratic nature to its name, even. It needed to get out of the firewall to open the processes and all of those things to the community outside of Sun; not because those things themselves are the problem. It is sustainable even in the long-term. The Apache Foundation, MySQL, and FSF have similar models for their software projects; are you suggesting that they rid themselves of their bureaucracy as well? The Apache project is very successful and if you weren't aware of it, Roy Fielding of the Apache Foundation was one of the people that helped write the OpenSolaris constitution. So, that's not enough to convince me that is the wrong thing to do. > > I'm going to assume that when you say that OpenSolaris should be left > > as a footnote, that you mean that no distribution should be called > > OpenSolaris, but there should be defined uses of the trademark made > > available just as there are certain usages of the Linux trademark that > > have been forbidden. > > Yes, but from what I know of Sun as an outsider, those uses will be a lot > more restrictive than those of the Linux trademark. > > Of course, that's all speculation on my part. Sun may surprise me yet. But > I'm not holding my breath. I like to expect the best, but I also find it > wise to prepare for the worst. That's why Sun is asking the community to help define the restrictions. They want to ensure that all reasonable usages are addressed properly. I invite you to contribute those usage guidelines as was already done by Sun. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 15:23:53 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:23:53 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel > > using the GNU operating system. It also started without a > > pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux > > community also lacks a central website or place that represents their > > community. > > In my opinion, that's not a flaw, but an ecological advantage. I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that. Specifically, what advantages do you think it gives that Linux is just a kernel and not an operating system. How does that benefit its users, developers, etc.? Or were you speaking only about the community and foundation aspects? -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From mb1x at gmx.com Fri Oct 26 15:57:40 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:57:40 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Urging away your own year-long loyal key supporters: http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=323 Message-ID: <472270E4.10802@gmx.com> The biggest hindrance to OpenOffice dominance is Sun itself Written by Steve Lake 10.22.2007 at 08:19am One of the things that bothers me profusely about OpenOffice is Sun?s maniacal infatuation with controlling every square inch of OpenOffice, including all the copyrights to the code within it. That in turn has left some contributors a bit on the perturbed side, if not downright screaming mad. Yet Sun is dead set on owning the copyright to every ounce of code contributed to OpenOffice, even going so far as to rewrite contributions to the project just so they can control the copyright of everything that goes into it. Now I can see where they might want to do this to protect themselves from legal entanglements caused by copied code. But sadly, the methods they?re using actually would, and likely will, blow right up in their face. And we all know a certain somebody that would love to see that happen, if not actually help it to occur. Besides, OpenOffice is an Open Source project. What?s the point of saying its free and Open Source if they?re going to act like a bunch of Nazis and confiscate the copyright on everything that?s submitted to them. That?s not software freedom. That?s flat out extortion and theft of free labor from gullible programmers working on a faux Open Source project. In doing so, they make themselves no better than Microsoft or any other self interested, greedy, dictatorial, corporate regime, and have no part in the philosophies of the Open Source community. In fact, the way they?re acting, if they were to suddenly rescind the Open Source license that OpenOffice is released under tomorrow, it?d be nearly impossible to tell the difference between them and Microsoft. The only real difference will be that Microsoft pays its help, and Sun gets most of theirs for free. If Sun truly wants OpenOffice to succeed, they need to take their hands off it, truly give it to the Open Source community with zero strings attached, and let the project manage itself. Otherwise, OpenOffice will never truly succeed and we?ll simply go from one benevolent dictator with a well designed office suite, to another. And forking OpenOffice is not an option. Sun?s made sure that such an effort would end faster than it got started. So if there?s no real way around this problem with the existing OpenOffice suite, then I say that we need to look at other alternatives like Gnome Office Tools or Koffice. Sun needs to be willing to let go and let OpenOffice manage itself. Otherwise it will continue to be nothing more than a brightly glowing bulb that will soon burn out and go dark. So I?m calling on Sun to do the right thing here. They need to take their hands off of OpenOffice and give it wholly and completely to the community with no strings attached, so that it can live and grow like any other Open Source project. Sun, stop pretending that Open Office is Open Source. The way you?ve got it setup, it?s not. It?s just a sweat shop for free labor designed for your own selfish purposes and not the good of the community as a whole. Do the right thing and totally, and completely, set Open Office free. The best way to do that is simply to let the Open Office foundation have all the copyrights to Open Office you currently control and then let go completely. Stop being the benevolent dictator. It?s not helping any. In fact, it?s making things worse. And finally, to all the developers out there in the Open Source community working on Open Office. Consider turning your attention away from Open Office and towards one of the other rivals such as Gnome Office Tools or Koffice for the time being. If Sun is going to be so contradictive to the principles of Open Source in their supposedly Open Source office suite, then it?s best not to waste your time there and to move on to better things. If Sun changes their ways and does the right thing, I invite you to return, but for now, it?s best to leave them high and dry until they do. Discuss this! ( 6 comments ) From mb1x at gmx.com Fri Oct 26 16:29:27 2007 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:29:27 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Urging away your own year-long loyal key supporters: http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=323 In-Reply-To: <472270E4.10802@gmx.com> References: <472270E4.10802@gmx.com> Message-ID: <47227857.5020903@gmx.com> Martin Bochnig wrote: > The biggest hindrance to OpenOffice dominance is Sun itself > Written by Steve Lake > 10.22.2007 at 08:19am > > One of the things that bothers me profusely about OpenOffice is Sun?s > maniacal infatuation with controlling every square inch of OpenOffice, > including all the copyrights to the code within it. That in turn has > left some contributors a bit on the perturbed side, if not downright > screaming mad. Yet Sun is dead set on owning the copyright to every > ounce of code contributed to OpenOffice, even going so far as to rewrite > contributions to the project just so they can control the copyright of > everything that goes into it. Now I can see where they might want to do > this to protect themselves from legal entanglements caused by copied code. > > But sadly, the methods they?re using actually would, and likely will, > blow right up in their face. And we all know a certain somebody that > would love to see that happen, if not actually help it to occur. > Besides, OpenOffice is an Open Source project. What?s the point of > saying its free and Open Source if they?re going to act like a bunch of > Nazis and confiscate the copyright on everything that?s submitted to > them. That?s not software freedom. That?s flat out extortion and theft > of free labor from gullible programmers working on a faux Open Source > project. > It has happened the same way with what I have delivered for FOX: Every single tiny patch or Makefile contains a huge Sun-header. I also had been promised a job opportunity _before_ I had released the code (kind regards to a leading figure at X11 g. [not my friends Alan or Jay]). Nothing has survived: I have been fooled by that manager. It is a circus here. And while most here live on 50K/60K/70K or more, I have to survive on less than 006K per year. The same can be seen all over the place here (this reminds me of some popular shell, some csw software and so forth!). I will get me what I deserve: Elsewhere. I give up after all those years of trying to get some small job at Sun. Or only just a response to unwanted questions (such as why Indiana needs to be a re-invention of the wheel, wasting *tons* of resources and money, rather than building on what Blastwave or Nextenda have already achieved in *decades* of "free labour" enineering man-power, in and by TRUE COMMUNITIES). Leading figures (those in charge) simply continue to silently ignore questions like that, whether I repeat them, or not. This is a clear indicator for a lack of respect. I had accepted that for the last years, now it is over. I'm going to create a family and forget that stuff here. I myself could survive with those circumstances, my girl-friend is more reasonable. Input != Output Thanks and kind regards to all friends and loyal supporters of mine :-) Take care Martin Bochnig > In doing so, they make themselves no better than Microsoft or any other > self interested, greedy, dictatorial, corporate regime, and have no part > in the philosophies of the Open Source community. In fact, the way > they?re acting, if they were to suddenly rescind the Open Source license > that OpenOffice is released under tomorrow, it?d be nearly impossible to > tell the difference between them and Microsoft. The only real difference > will be that Microsoft pays its help, and Sun gets most of theirs for > free. If Sun truly wants OpenOffice to succeed, they need to take their > hands off it, truly give it to the Open Source community with zero > strings attached, and let the project manage itself. Otherwise, > OpenOffice will never truly succeed and we?ll simply go from one > benevolent dictator with a well designed office suite, to another. > > And forking OpenOffice is not an option. Sun?s made sure that such an > effort would end faster than it got started. So if there?s no real way > around this problem with the existing OpenOffice suite, then I say that > we need to look at other alternatives like Gnome Office Tools or > Koffice. Sun needs to be willing to let go and let OpenOffice manage > itself. Otherwise it will continue to be nothing more than a brightly > glowing bulb that will soon burn out and go dark. So I?m calling on Sun > to do the right thing here. They need to take their hands off of > OpenOffice and give it wholly and completely to the community with no > strings attached, so that it can live and grow like any other Open > Source project. > > Sun, stop pretending that Open Office is Open Source. The way you?ve got > it setup, it?s not. It?s just a sweat shop for free labor designed for > your own selfish purposes and not the good of the community as a whole. > Do the right thing and totally, and completely, set Open Office free. > The best way to do that is simply to let the Open Office foundation have > all the copyrights to Open Office you currently control and then let go > completely. Stop being the benevolent dictator. It?s not helping any. In > fact, it?s making things worse. > > And finally, to all the developers out there in the Open Source > community working on Open Office. Consider turning your attention away > >from Open Office and towards one of the other rivals such as Gnome > Office Tools or Koffice for the time being. If Sun is going to be so > contradictive to the principles of Open Source in their supposedly Open > Source office suite, then it?s best not to waste your time there and to > move on to better things. If Sun changes their ways and does the right > thing, I invite you to return, but for now, it?s best to leave them high > and dry until they do. > Discuss this! ( 6 comments ) > > > > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > > From chris.mahan at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 16:32:20 2007 From: chris.mahan at gmail.com (Chris Mahan) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:32:20 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4d9b53db0710261632k26a4b6c6mb190f1a8f7ffe2e4@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel > > > using the GNU operating system. It also started without a > > > pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux > > > community also lacks a central website or place that represents their > > > community. > > > > In my opinion, that's not a flaw, but an ecological advantage. > > I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that. Specifically, what > advantages do you think it gives that Linux is just a kernel and not > an operating system. How does that benefit its users, developers, > etc.? Or were you speaking only about the community and foundation > aspects? You can't go too far down any alley of the internet without bumping into this linux guy. The internet itself is the "place" of linux. Looking in chatrooms? There 's linux. On badly-protected phpbb forums? There's Linux. in the corporate boardroom? linux. websites of all kinds, creeds, and languages: Linux. Why? Because it's an elegant solution to a complicated problem. Do you remember the days before linux (1999)? You wanted an OS, you had to pay, and agree to a EULA that made lawyers cringe. Now, you can go to the web, and before long you'll run headlong into a free, unix-like OS based on a unix-like kernel made by some guy in college that just happens to have awesome uptime and will run a bunch of crap for free and you can just, download, [burn,] install, and use without telling a soul what you did. It's like the underground of the internet. The drug-of-choice of geekdom. The fight club of the seedy underpasses of the information superhighway. What's the membership fee? There is none. What's the price of entry? You've got to be hard-core, and you've got to have skills. And you've got to be willing to take risks. Linux is just a kernel, granted. But it's freaking important to the rest of the OS. Linus and his lieutenants maintains an iron hand on the kernel. They say nothing about anything else. They don't say how, when, or with whom the kernel with sleep. Wanna put the kernel in your specialized cell-phone: Enjoy. Wanna put it on IBM z-Series mainframes? More power to you. Wanna put it in a gaming console, a OS on a usb key, a firewall, or a motorcycle? have at it. The Linux "specie" offsprings are varied and have found their homes in nearly every computing environment. This is because restrictions on its use were few and far between. Witness the row between Linus and RMS over GPL v3 over DRM in devices. Linus didn't want to restrict the use of Linux for DRM applications... How does that benefit the users? All sorts of devices in all shapes and sizes at affordable prices. Developers? See the code, muck with the code, Voila! Your invention! I would say that the biggest benefit of linux and linux-based systems are their long-term adaptability to new and unforeseen computing environments. That comes from diversity and decentralization. Thus, it is a competitive advantage against all, OpenSolaris included. I want OpenSolaris-derived systems to have the same chance in the highly competitive environment. I want OpenSolaris-derived systems to be able to stand on their own without having to be propped up by Sun marketing and financial support. I want a multitude of OpenSolaris-based systems of all shapes and sizes to flood the landscape and replicate wildly. That won't happen unless Sun open the cage and unhook the leash. That's what happened to Linux. GNU/Linux-based systems are competing against UNIX (and seem to have won won by some accounts), against Windows, against OS X, against PalmOS, against gaming consoles, and a host of other systems in this complex and diverse environment, and manages to do it without a central command and central "location." Look at the OLPC. It's running linux. I hear people at MSFT are trying to get XP on it. I doubt leopard would run on it. I doubt an Open-Solaris distro could run on it without some a heavy face-lift. Where that environment is concerned, Linux is ahead of everyone else. -- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/ chris_mahan at yahoo.com chris.mahan at gmail.com cell 818.943.1850 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swalker at opensolaris.org Fri Oct 26 19:45:36 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:45:36 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261632k26a4b6c6mb190f1a8f7ffe2e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261632k26a4b6c6mb190f1a8f7ffe2e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > > > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel > > > > using the GNU operating system. It also started without a > > > > pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux > > > > community also lacks a central website or place that represents their > > > > community. > > > > > > In my opinion, that's not a flaw, but an ecological advantage. > > > > I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that. Specifically, what > > advantages do you think it gives that Linux is just a kernel and not > > an operating system. How does that benefit its users, developers, > > etc.? Or were you speaking only about the community and foundation > > aspects? > > You can't go too far down any alley of the internet without bumping into > this linux guy. The internet itself is the "place" of linux. Looking in > chatrooms? There 's linux. On badly-protected phpbb forums? There's Linux. > in the corporate boardroom? linux. websites of all kinds, creeds, and > languages: Linux. > > Why? > > Because it's an elegant solution to a complicated problem. > > Do you remember the days before linux (1999)? You wanted an OS, you had to > pay, and agree to a EULA that made lawyers cringe. Yes, actually, I do. I started using Linux in 1995 or 1996 (Slackware Linux to be exact). The first version of Slackware was released in 1993. As a side note, I didn't start using Solaris until 2005. > Linux is just a kernel, granted. But it's freaking important to the rest of > the OS. Linus and his lieutenants maintains an iron hand on the kernel. They > say nothing about anything else. They don't say how, when, or with whom the > kernel with sleep. Wanna put the kernel in your specialized cell-phone: > Enjoy. Wanna put it on IBM z-Series mainframes? More power to you. Wanna put > it in a gaming console, a OS on a usb key, a firewall, or a motorcycle? have > at it. That isn't completely true; Linus has been known to reject features or things people wanted to put into the kernel, and the license by it's very nature allows you to do whatever you want with it. > The Linux "specie" offsprings are varied and have found their homes in > nearly every computing environment. This is because restrictions on its use > were few and far between. Witness the row between Linus and RMS over GPL v3 > over DRM in devices. Linus didn't want to restrict the use of Linux for DRM > applications... > > How does that benefit the users? All sorts of devices in all shapes and > sizes at affordable prices. Developers? See the code, muck with the code, > Voila! Your invention! > > I would say that the biggest benefit of linux and linux-based systems are > their long-term adaptability to new and unforeseen computing environments. > That comes from diversity and decentralization. Thus, it is a competitive > advantage against all, OpenSolaris included. I don't see how; you can do all of those things with OpenSolaris as is today. > I want OpenSolaris-derived systems to have the same chance in the highly > competitive environment. > > I want OpenSolaris-derived systems to be able to stand on their own without > having to be propped up by Sun marketing and financial support. I want a > multitude of OpenSolaris-based systems of all shapes and sizes to flood the > landscape and replicate wildly. That won't happen unless Sun open the cage > and unhook the leash. What cage and what leash? OpenSolaris is no more leashed, caged or hooked than Linux. At least in the sense that the code is under even more liberal licensing the Linux is which makes it even more suitable for use in embedded environments. Even with the current proposed guidelines which would limit trademark usage to "Built with OpenSolaris" I don't see how that would put anything at a disadvantage. No one is being stopped from starting their own "RedHat" equivalent with OpenSolaris. > That's what happened to Linux. GNU/Linux-based systems are competing against > UNIX (and seem to have won won by some accounts), against Windows, against > OS X, against PalmOS, against gaming consoles, and a host of other systems > in this complex and diverse environment, and manages to do it without a > central command and central "location." But that has also caused problems. Look how many years its taken to get where they are; look at the fact that they still lack a standardized audio and graphics API for games, etc. Look at the ABI problems they still face. > Look at the OLPC. It's running linux. I hear people at MSFT are trying to > get XP on it. I doubt leopard would run on it. I doubt an Open-Solaris > distro could run on it without some a heavy face-lift. Where that > environment is concerned, Linux is ahead of everyone else. All of what you posted is true but it didn't answer my question. You didn't state how the lack of a central organisation is a benefit or how an organised foundation is lacking, etc. Look at how Apache has thrived with a foundation and central organisation, is that not a counter-point to your example of Linux's success? Rather, you have merely stated that Linux is successful without one. That does not prove that it wouldn't be successful with one. You also didn't state, for example, how it is more successful as just a kernel. You didn't specifically state how its benefits users that Linux is just a kernel and not a complete operating system. I'm not being critical here, I just want to give you a chance to adequately answer. Thanks, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 21:32:09 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:32:09 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4722BF49.2050501@Sun.Com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > This is why currently an "OpenSolaris" distro just needs to be based on ON. Please take a look at the wiki page - I restructured it to better represent what I think is your perspective. Let me know if its new wording works better for you. I also changed and drastically simplified some of the example branding phrases, since it was pointed out to me that trademark law doesn't allow two trademarks, owned by different entities, to be used together without additional intervening modifiers - "IBM OpenSolaris" isn't actually allowed :-( I hope these changes clarify things without changing the intended meaning. I'm on the road right now, bandwidth sucks, and I may not have the ability to sync up 'till Monday... -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 21:38:49 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:38:49 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4722C0D9.5090903@Sun.Com> Mark Martin wrote: > ... Good questions/concerns - I added them to the notes on the wiki page. -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 22:04:50 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:04:50 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4722C6F2.1050701@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: >> so again I ask you - please make a counter proposal. Be part of >> the solution! > > Proposal: No distro will be named OpenSolaris. I updated the wiki to include this > John's proposal, as I understand, is that only people/teams that can > use the OpenSolaris trademark as a standalone brand, are people/teams > that make a product that only consists of Sun's binaries. My bad - As I noted in previous email (but not on the wiki), the "binary" stuff was trying (poorly) to capture the idea of binary compatibility (if you use the recipe /and/ the packages in the repository referenced by that recipe...) Since the whole recipe/repository thing is causing confusion, I deleted it, and instead added more to the note in parkinglot#1 that we need to define and work on a good definition of 'core'. > (Please note the use of the commas. They can be replaced by the word > "an" if that makes it clearer for you). I did - and updated the wiki to match. > It also seems that many feel that the current definition of > OpenSolaris shouldn't change. That's the problem - there /is/ no current definition of OpenSolaris. There are a dozen or more, and they are all different. This project is trying to fix *that* problem. Please recheck the wiki - I hope I've captured your main concerns. if not, please add inline comments/questions... -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 22:41:17 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:41:17 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] I guess "the community" decided to go with my original suggestion? In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710261203v360f09baj19d904590eaf27be@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710252239u5fb22eb5lf7215a0dd1a91ace@mail.gmail.com> <47220795.4080809@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710261015s2081cf27vd056f3923a778676@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710261203v360f09baj19d904590eaf27be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4722CF7D.7000400@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > A compatibility test, that says, "verify that this is the same exact > set of bits" is an audit, not a compatibility test. You are defining > compatibility in such a way that only the thing being tested against As the one who wrote those words, along with an email stating that: > What if the test suite was simply an audit that this distro did, in fact, > get built out of the required packages from the required repository? > > Not quite as hard as a full functional test (and maybe not quite as > useful in the long term...), but potentially good enuf to get to the > next stage... isn't in violent, 100% agreement with what you are saying? We don't have any tests now, and I didn't have time to whip any up out of thin air, so I stuck the issue somewhere where it wouldn't get forgotten. It sounds like you have energy to run with this - please do so; flesh out some structure behind this topic on the wiki... > Currently I can take Blastwave packages compiled for Solaris 8, and > install and run them on Solaris 8, Solaris 9, Solaris 10, SX[CD]E > b1-75, Nexenta, Martux, etc. Are these distros incompatible or > compatible? I'd say that we *want* them to be, therefore the question to ask is what the "branding quality control" tests need to look like to make that happen? (Though blastwave isn't necessarily a good example - it carries along its own compatibility core set of packages that isolate it from the host OS...) [I added some of your comments to the wiki - please elaborate on them there...] > But then again this whole compatibility discussion, predicates that as > a community we have consensus on a need for an OpenSolaris reference > distro. I don't recall any community vote saying that need exists. How > can we write guidelines, presuming the existence of such a beast? By doing what we think is best, by trying, failing, trying, succeeding, trying... Where was the community consensus that said we wanted to do ksh93, DTrace, the bugfix for [XXX, YYY and ZZZ], etc? - you won't find it. Development efforts - especially open source ones - don't work that way, they work by people seeing a need, and going off and addressing that need. If they did a good job at it, the community adopts their work... -John From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Fri Oct 26 23:07:26 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:07:26 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710261632k26a4b6c6mb190f1a8f7ffe2e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261632k26a4b6c6mb190f1a8f7ffe2e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4722D59E.9000104@Sun.Com> Chris Mahan wrote: > I want OpenSolaris-derived systems to have the same chance in the highly > competitive environment. What part of the proposed branding guidelines prevents that? Your vision of LinuxGoodness has dozens to hundreds of singleton distros spreading themselves around the world, all under their own name. The same thing holds for OpenSolaris distros, both NOW and in the proposal being discussed. What you are missing is the level of compatibility between all those distros - if it exists at all, it is predominantly only at the source code level. Unless you stake out a well defined corner (redhat, ubuntu, debian), you can't presume that you will be able to download a precompiled package and run it on your system. For some, this is OK, even seen as a feature. For others, it is an insurmountable barrier to entry. It is for those latter users that I am pushing this topic. -John From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Sat Oct 27 04:09:33 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:09:33 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47231c6d.PKAFY4ME5j9th6gI%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel > > > using the GNU operating system. It also started without a > > > pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux > > > community also lacks a central website or place that represents their > > > community. > > > > In my opinion, that's not a flaw, but an ecological advantage. > > I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that. Specifically, what > advantages do you think it gives that Linux is just a kernel and not > an operating system. How does that benefit its users, developers, > etc.? Or were you speaking only about the community and foundation > aspects? Solaris started as a complete OS.... but if restructuring OpenSolaris goes ahead the same way as now, we may end at a state where OpenSolaris is (like Linux) no more than a kernel. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From swalker at opensolaris.org Sat Oct 27 06:46:35 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:46:35 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <47231c6d.PKAFY4ME5j9th6gI%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> <47231c6d.PKAFY4ME5j9th6gI%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 27/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > On 26/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > > > On 10/26/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > The big difference though is that Linux started out as only a kernel > > > > using the GNU operating system. It also started without a > > > > pre-established community or codebase as its foundation. The Linux > > > > community also lacks a central website or place that represents their > > > > community. > > > > > > In my opinion, that's not a flaw, but an ecological advantage. > > > > I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that. Specifically, what > > advantages do you think it gives that Linux is just a kernel and not > > an operating system. How does that benefit its users, developers, > > etc.? Or were you speaking only about the community and foundation > > aspects? > > Solaris started as a complete OS.... but if restructuring OpenSolaris > goes ahead the same way as now, we may end at a state where OpenSolaris > is (like Linux) no more than a kernel. I would hope not; I think one of OpenSolaris' biggest strengths is that it's not just a kernel on top of some random OS components (GNU); but a complete solution. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From swalker at opensolaris.org Sat Oct 27 07:06:28 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:06:28 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Great article on naming and OpenSolaris Message-ID: A article that puts my thoughts into words far more eloquently than I ever could: http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/10/26/opensolaris_naming/ -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Sat Oct 27 09:13:27 2007 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:13:27 +0900 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [indiana-discuss] Great article on naming and OpenSolaris In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472363A7.6030008@sun.com> Shawn Walker wrote: > A article that puts my thoughts into words far more eloquently than I > ever could: > > http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/10/26/opensolaris_naming/ I agree. Also, I've done some talking about Indiana this week in China, and more than a few people here are very much looking forward to the distro: http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/tags/techdays Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 11:21:19 2007 From: shivakumar.gn at gmail.com (S h i v) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:51:19 +0530 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes Message-ID: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> My mail had been lying in the drafts since I have been a little weary of taking part in the discussions, but here goes. Before providing inputs to the some of the discussion points that have come up, I would like to make it known the perspective with which I am coming and why so. I am excited about Indiana because of many of the nice technologies it will incorporate and the rights to re-distribute that it provides. But, if I had to characterize it, Indiana incorporates the work from various projects at opensolaris.org, It will be re-distributable distro and is driven by sun. I remember discussing few weeks back with some people in the user group, saying, due to the short and fast paced development cycle, many decisions pertaining to Indiana is sun internal. Once preview release is done, one of the 2 things will happen - It will become a community distro in the true sense OR - Sun will make it its official distro and since logistics of managing 2 distros (SX and Indiana) is huge, SX will be killed. In which case Indiana takes place of SX as sun's distro with the added benefit that it will be re-distributable. >From inputs got after the summit, it seems to be the latter that is turning out to be true. The way I see, as of now, Indiana falls short of procedural justice to be called as a community distro. When Indiana is the only distro that is there for Sun to bet its business on, it is expected that each and every bit that goes into it should be of relevance to Sun's business segments. Expecting Sun to let go of the control make no sense. Below I provide my responses to some of the points that have popped up. The reasoning behind YES/NO vote is as important. ======================================================= 1. OpenSolaris TM belongs to Sun and calling its distro as "The OpenSolaris distro" or "The OpenSolaris reference distro" or something on those lines is OK. A: This is OK since community's point of view is actually moot. TM is owned by Sun and it can use it the way it feels right. Keeping it in the scope of TM usage discussions for community drawing the guidelines is not of any relevance. Some of them are given as non-negotiables and are to be accepted as that. 2. There should be a unambiguous single download for OpenSolaris distro binary on the website. A: I vote YES. I believe it helps in better acceptance. But note: this is to do with webhosting and webpage design and has nothing to do with TM usage. 3. The single unambiguous download should be that of Indiana A: I vote YES. I believe so because, sun can commit enough resources into its distro to ensure continuous improvements, high quality, and deliveries on well defined periodicity. This it will do since it is betting its future business on Indiana. None of the currently existing distros come close. This is required now and I do not see any other distro in the foreseeable future. 4. Indiana itself should be the standard-reference for all other distros. The compliance of any OpenSolaris based distro will be tested against Indiana. A: I vote NO. >From community point of view, if all distros are looked at impartially, then, the way to establish a reference/standard is to define what compatibility means for an OpenSolaris distro and how to verify this(a test suite). After this the distro in question (be it Indiana or any other) should be subject to the verification and say it is *compliant*. Any single distro in itself being a reference will imply that distro always satisfies the requirements while being a moving target for the others. 5. If a distro is created using unmodified Indiana recipes, such distros will have the privilege of using the TM in a certain fashion. A: Out of scope of the discussion! This is linked to TM usage and Sun is the decision maker. Out of bounds of the community, though Sun might consider inputs from the community here. If so, I vote YES. Reason being Indiana already is given the privilege and derivatives of Indiana should be identifiable in the description/nomenclature to ensure no confusion among users. This helps in the same. 6. A standard/compatibility reference definition (ex: a test suite) is required A: A qualified YES. Having ABI compatibility has many benefits. But, the need for a test suite is not so urgent and immediate that without it one should be compelled to call Indiana as the standard with an argument that anyway community can revisit the proposal. Undo options do not always work that well. The starting point for all these discussions has been branding related comments such as "would it benefit the community if Indiana is branded as The OpenSolaris distro". The discussion has taken the flavour that is more relevant to ARC and testing community than advocacy only subsequently. 7. In the absence of a standard test suite, Indiana itself should be designated as the standard since there is no other distro to take that place. A: NO See response to previous question for details. ======================================================= regards Shiv From brandorr at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 06:55:49 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:55:49 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> On 10/27/07, S h i v wrote: > My mail had been lying in the drafts since I have been a little weary > of taking part in the discussions, but here goes. > > Before providing inputs to the some of the discussion points that have > come up, I would like to make it known the perspective with which I am > coming and why so. > > I am excited about Indiana because of many of the nice technologies it > will incorporate and the rights to re-distribute that it provides. > But, if I had to characterize it, Indiana incorporates the work from > various projects at opensolaris.org, It will be re-distributable > distro and is driven by sun. > > I remember discussing few weeks back with some people in the user > group, saying, due to the short and fast paced development cycle, many > decisions pertaining to Indiana is sun internal. Once preview release > is done, one of the 2 things will happen > - It will become a community distro in the true sense > OR > - Sun will make it its official distro and since logistics of managing > 2 distros (SX and Indiana) is huge, SX will be killed. In which case > Indiana takes place of SX as sun's distro with the added benefit that > it will be re-distributable. Seems a reasonable thought. During the summit it was proposed that the idea is for Indiana to replace SX[CD]E, but for logistical reasons that probably won't happen right away. > >From inputs got after the summit, it seems to be the latter that is > turning out to be true. > The way I see, as of now, Indiana falls short of procedural justice to > be called as a community distro. Agreed. > When Indiana is the only distro that is there for Sun to bet its > business on, it is expected that each and every bit that goes into it > should be of relevance to Sun's business segments. Expecting Sun to > let go of the control make no sense. Agreed. > Below I provide my responses to some of the points that have popped > up. The reasoning behind YES/NO vote is as important. > ======================================================= > > 1. OpenSolaris TM belongs to Sun and calling its distro as "The > OpenSolaris distro" or "The OpenSolaris reference distro" or something > on those lines is OK. > A: This is OK since community's point of view is actually moot. TM is > owned by Sun and it can use it the way it feels right. > Keeping it in the scope of TM usage discussions for community drawing > the guidelines is not of any relevance. Some of them are given as > non-negotiables and are to be accepted as that. This is a fact. However it doesn't mean it's OK. > 2. There should be a unambiguous single download for OpenSolaris > distro binary on the website. > A: I vote YES. > I believe it helps in better acceptance. > But note: this is to do with webhosting and webpage design and has > nothing to do with TM usage. This can happen, without actually naming Indiana OpenSolaris. I would say that I agreed we should separate the naming debate, from the task of making the download page much simpler and clearer. (Note: It can be made simpler and clearer while still allowing for multiple distros.) > 3. The single unambiguous download should be that of Indiana > A: I vote YES. > > I believe so because, sun can commit enough resources into its distro > to ensure continuous improvements, high quality, and deliveries on > well defined periodicity. This it will do since it is betting its > future business on Indiana. None of the currently existing distros > come close. This is required now and I do not see any other distro in > the foreseeable future. I would say that it is too soon to say, but this is the most likely outcome. (BTW - Why don't you think that Nexenta has a chance? They were the first to get ZFS root working as part of the installer, also they have over 15,000 working packages in their repo today.) > 4. Indiana itself should be the standard-reference for all other > distros. The compliance of any OpenSolaris based distro will be tested > against Indiana. > A: I vote NO. > > >From community point of view, if all distros are looked at > impartially, then, the way to establish a reference/standard is to > define what compatibility means for an OpenSolaris distro and how to > verify this(a test suite). After this the distro in question (be it > Indiana or any other) should be subject to the verification and say it > is *compliant*. > > Any single distro in itself being a reference will imply that distro > always satisfies the requirements while being a moving target for the > others. I'm in complete agreement with this. Keep in mind by naming Indiana OpenSolaris, it can create confusion. > 5. If a distro is created using unmodified Indiana recipes, such > distros will have the privilege of using the TM in a certain fashion. > A: Out of scope of the discussion! > This is linked to TM usage and Sun is the decision maker. Out of > bounds of the community, though Sun might consider inputs from the > community here. If so, > I vote YES. > Reason being Indiana already is given the privilege and derivatives of > Indiana should be identifiable in the description/nomenclature to > ensure no confusion among users. This helps in the same. > > 6. A standard/compatibility reference definition (ex: a test suite) is required > A: A qualified YES. > Having ABI compatibility has many benefits. But, the need for a test > suite is not so urgent and immediate that without it one should be > compelled to call Indiana as the standard with an argument that anyway > community can revisit the proposal. Undo options do not always work > that well. > The starting point for all these discussions has been branding related > comments such as "would it benefit the community if Indiana is branded > as The OpenSolaris distro". > The discussion has taken the flavour that is more relevant to ARC and > testing community than advocacy only subsequently. Agreed. > 7. In the absence of a standard test suite, Indiana itself should be > designated as the standard since there is no other distro to take that > place. > A: NO Agreed. > See response to previous question for details. > > ======================================================= > > regards > Shiv > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From stevel at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 08:50:39 2007 From: stevel at opensolaris.org (Stephen Lau) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:50:39 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Urging away your own year-long loyal key supporters: http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=323 In-Reply-To: <47227857.5020903@gmx.com> References: <472270E4.10802@gmx.com> <47227857.5020903@gmx.com> Message-ID: <4726014F.1000908@opensolaris.org> Martin Bochnig wrote: > Martin Bochnig wrote: > >> The biggest hindrance to OpenOffice dominance is Sun itself >> Written by Steve Lake >> 10.22.2007 at 08:19am >> >> One of the things that bothers me profusely about OpenOffice is Sun?s >> maniacal infatuation with controlling every square inch of OpenOffice, >> including all the copyrights to the code within it. That in turn has >> left some contributors a bit on the perturbed side, if not downright >> screaming mad. Yet Sun is dead set on owning the copyright to every >> ounce of code contributed to OpenOffice, even going so far as to rewrite >> contributions to the project just so they can control the copyright of >> everything that goes into it. Now I can see where they might want to do >> this to protect themselves from legal entanglements caused by copied code. >> >> But sadly, the methods they?re using actually would, and likely will, >> blow right up in their face. And we all know a certain somebody that >> would love to see that happen, if not actually help it to occur. >> Besides, OpenOffice is an Open Source project. What?s the point of >> saying its free and Open Source if they?re going to act like a bunch of >> Nazis and confiscate the copyright on everything that?s submitted to >> them. That?s not software freedom. That?s flat out extortion and theft >> of free labor from gullible programmers working on a faux Open Source >> project. >> >> > > > It has happened the same way with what I have delivered for FOX: Every > single tiny patch or Makefile contains a huge Sun-header. > I also had been promised a job opportunity _before_ I had released the > code (kind regards to a leading figure at X11 g. [not my friends Alan or > Jay]). > Nothing has survived: I have been fooled by that manager. > It is a circus here. > And while most here live on 50K/60K/70K or more, I have to survive on > less than 006K per year. > The same can be seen all over the place here (this reminds me of some > popular shell, some csw software and so forth!). > I will get me what I deserve: Elsewhere. I give up after all those years > of trying to get some small job at Sun. > Or only just a response to unwanted questions (such as why Indiana needs > to be a re-invention of the wheel, wasting *tons* of resources and > money, rather than building on what Blastwave or Nextenda have already > achieved in *decades* of "free labour" enineering man-power, in and by > TRUE COMMUNITIES). > I'm sorry - I didn't realise this list was for bitching about each of our own personal grievances with Indiana, our issues with Sun, and why we aren't able to find employment. I thought it was for trademark policy issues. I'll unsubscribe now. cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Mon Oct 29 11:17:57 2007 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:17:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Great article on naming and OpenSolaris In-Reply-To: <472363A7.6030008@sun.com> References: <472363A7.6030008@sun.com> Message-ID: This sure is a challenging problem. For example O'Grady's piece rests a "greater good" argument, but greater good arguments can sometimes break down, it all depends on the magnitude of the tradeoffs. I'm also disappointed he didn't discuss having a (Indiana-produced) distro called "The OpenSolaris Reference Distro" (as an alternative to making Indiana "/The/ OpenSolaris Distro"). Eric On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: >> A article that puts my thoughts into words far more eloquently than I >> ever could: >> >> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/10/26/opensolaris_naming/ > > > I agree. Also, I've done some talking about Indiana this week in China, > and more than a few people here are very much looking forward to the > distro: http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/tags/techdays > > Jim > -- > http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: >> A article that puts my thoughts into words far more eloquently than I >> ever could: >> >> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/10/26/opensolaris_naming/ > > > I agree. Also, I've done some talking about Indiana this week in China, > and more than a few people here are very much looking forward to the > distro: http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/tags/techdays > > Jim > -- > http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris > > _______________________________________________ > indiana-discuss mailing list > indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss > From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 12:10:58 2007 From: shivakumar.gn at gmail.com (S h i v) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:40:58 +0530 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/29/07, Brandorr wrote: > > On 10/27/07, S h i v wrote: > > > > 3. The single unambiguous download should be that of Indiana > > A: I vote YES. > > > > I believe so because, sun can commit enough resources into its distro > > to ensure continuous improvements, high quality, and deliveries on > > well defined periodicity. This it will do since it is betting its > > future business on Indiana. None of the currently existing distros > > come close. This is required now and I do not see any other distro in > > the foreseeable future. > > I would say that it is too soon to say, but this is the most likely > outcome. (BTW - Why don't you think that Nexenta has a chance? They > were the first to get ZFS root working as part of the installer, also > they have over 15,000 working packages in their repo today.) * Actually it is ~1600 packages. This input came from one of the Nexenta developers in our recent UG meeting. They are working on stabilizing these set of packages before proceeding with additional ones. * While Nexenta might make for an excellent distro, as a personality (userland, development stack, bugtracking, upcoming build processes) it might be closer to Ubuntu/Debian than SX. It is Debian/GNU ported onto OpenSolaris or Ubuntu clone (see Martin man's presentation at http://martinman.net/bosug/presentation.pdf). Most userland I believe is built with gcc and ABI compatibility issues might crop up due to linker differences. I expect it to have some more compatibility issues at the userland level due to its ubuntu makeup. Among the current distros it is SX that I like the best :) And I believe I will like Indiana as well from technology stand-point. But about the naming and the reasoning behind it, I stand by my earlier inputs unless someone can shed better light. regards Shiv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elw at stderr.org Mon Oct 29 12:33:56 2007 From: elw at stderr.org (elw at stderr.org) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:33:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] OT, but Re: Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Most userland I believe is built with gcc and ABI compatibility issues > might crop up due to linker differences. I expect it to have some more > compatibility issues at the userland level due to its ubuntu makeup. > Among the current distros it is SX that I like the best :) And I believe > I will like Indiana as well from technology stand-point. OSOL is supposed to build with gcc, so one would hope that ABI issues would be very, very slight -- as long as all of the required libraries are installed and available. --elijah From brandorr at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 12:58:04 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:58:04 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710291258q63e5ca15rae65d273856a2227@mail.gmail.com> On 10/29/07, S h i v wrote: > On 10/29/07, Brandorr wrote: > > On 10/27/07, S h i v wrote: > > > > > > 3. The single unambiguous download should be that of Indiana > > > A: I vote YES. > > > > > > I believe so because, sun can commit enough resources into its distro > > > to ensure continuous improvements, high quality, and deliveries on > > > well defined periodicity. This it will do since it is betting its > > > future business on Indiana. None of the currently existing distros > > > come close. This is required now and I do not see any other distro in > > > the foreseeable future. > > > > I would say that it is too soon to say, but this is the most likely > > outcome. (BTW - Why don't you think that Nexenta has a chance? They > > were the first to get ZFS root working as part of the installer, also > > they have over 15,000 working packages in their repo today.) > > > * Actually it is ~1600 packages. This input came from one of the Nexenta > developers in our recent UG meeting. They are working on stabilizing these > set of packages before proceeding with additional ones. The literal number is 12,229 packages. http://www.gnusolaris.org/archive/elatte-testing/allpackages 1600 packages sounds more like Blastwave. (Is there any chance you might be confusing the two?) > * While Nexenta might make for an excellent distro, as a personality > (userland, development stack, bugtracking, upcoming build processes) it > might be closer to Ubuntu/Debian than SX. Have you used Nexenta? Are you familiar with their personalities concept? They keep parallel binaries and libraries of equivalent utilities. e.g. grep, ls. Nexenta Personalities demo: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups/czosug/czosug15_nexenta_personality.html > It is Debian/GNU ported onto OpenSolaris or Ubuntu clone (see Martin man's > presentation at > http://martinman.net/bosug/presentation.pdf). > Most userland I believe is built with gcc and ABI compatibility issues might > crop up due to linker differences. I Nexenta, like SXCE uses both gcc and Sun Studio. If I recall their preference is for Sun Studio. Demo apt-get Nexenta: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups/czosug/czosug15_nexenta_apt-get.html Nexenta OpenSolaris zones integration with apt: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/os_user_groups/czosug/czosug15_nexenta_rails.html > expect it to have some more > compatibility issues at the userland level due to its ubuntu makeup. > Among the current distros it is SX that I like the best :) > And I believe I will like Indiana as well from technology stand-point. I think that prior to running them both side by side, it is impossible to make any predictions. > But about the naming and the reasoning behind it, I stand by my earlier > inputs unless someone can shed better light. And that input is basically, "OpenSolaris is Sun's brand to do with as they wish, and Indiana is Sun's distro, so who are we to say how the two are combined?"? > > regards > Shiv > Please note I am not proposing Nexenta as a reference distro. (As you may be aware, I don't think anything we have seen qualifies as a reference distro.) I am using Nexenta as an example to show that there are other choices as a community distro to wear the badge OpenSolaris.. Branding a distro the OpenSolaris *ANYTHING* distro, before even the first alpha release has been delivered is premature. (I note John P. has captured this, but it seems many still want to brand Indiana as OpenSolaris sight unseen.). Cheers, -Brian -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From brandorr at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 13:57:24 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:57:24 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". Message-ID: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> As John pointed out, defining these will help. For compatibility test, I will post a message to the testing community group. To define "core", I am not sure that I know which CG would be the best. I'd think core would be a subset of ON. (The minimum required to run backward compatible OpenSolaris binaries. Maybe the kernel + libc + shell(s) + drivers). -Brian -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Mon Oct 29 14:25:43 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:25:43 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > I'd think core would be a subset of ON. (The minimum required to > run backward compatible OpenSolaris binaries. Maybe the kernel + libc > + shell(s) + drivers). While this may indeed be a definition for "the absolute smallest" core possible, I don't believe for a moment that it is useful. Certainly not to users who will want to *do* something with their system, like download and run applications. With this definition, you could not expect firefox or thunderbird to run, nor could you use ruby on rails, eclipse, ..., or most anything else that one might find in the debian package repository - unless you also downloaded a large set of dependent packages. If close to 100% of the end users of these distros will need to go out and find/download/configure/install the same large set of "middleware" just to get to the point where they can run the apps they want to use, those distros will fail. Just like Solaris is failing in this same market, they won't actually be meeting the needs of the users they are targeted at. A better definition, IMO, is one that acknowledges that a larger core is needed - one that includes some of the following: desktop X11/GNOME/KDE/..., web infrastructure like Apache, Java, Perl/Python/[j]Ruby/..., database support like MySQL/PostgreSQL/..., networking tools (ssh, sendmail, netstat, routers, diags...) and probably a bunch of middleware libraries -John From swalker at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 14:30:18 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:30:18 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] OT, but Re: Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 29/10/2007, elw at stderr.org wrote: > > > Most userland I believe is built with gcc and ABI compatibility issues > > might crop up due to linker differences. I expect it to have some more > > compatibility issues at the userland level due to its ubuntu makeup. > > Among the current distros it is SX that I like the best :) And I believe > > I will like Indiana as well from technology stand-point. > > OSOL is supposed to build with gcc, so one would hope that ABI issues > would be very, very slight -- as long as all of the required libraries are > installed and available. No, I'm fairly certain it is built with Sun Studio with only very specific portions being built with gcc. The most problematic portions would be any C++ stuff. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Mon Oct 29 14:42:51 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:42:51 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710291258q63e5ca15rae65d273856a2227@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710291258q63e5ca15rae65d273856a2227@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <472653DB.7050407@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > (I note John P. has captured this, but it seems many still want to > brand Indiana as OpenSolaris sight unseen.). Just a quick note on this topic - I spoke to Anil Gadre (Sun VP Marketing, Ian's boss's boss) briefly at lunch today about this issue (one of those 10-second elevator pitches!) His response was that he wants to find out how the community wants to do this, rather than trying to dictate anything to it. It may be that "many" want to do this; that is not the same thing as "Sun is unilaterally deciding to do this" or "Sun has already chosen to disregard the Community's wishes".... I'm happy to postpone the "how should we handle the branding guidelines for the standalone "OpenSolaris" mark until Indiana has more of a track record; that does not mean that there wouldn't be value to us in being able to use the mark on distros... -John From brandorr at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 14:49:01 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:49:01 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710291449m1b9f445anc8b85a67e0c6e6d6@mail.gmail.com> On 10/29/07, John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > > I'd think core would be a subset of ON. (The minimum required to > > run backward compatible OpenSolaris binaries. Maybe the kernel + libc > > + shell(s) + drivers). > > > While this may indeed be a definition for "the absolute smallest" core > possible, I don't believe for a moment that it is useful. Certainly not > to users who will want to *do* something with their system, like > download and run applications. By definition a "core", should be the absolute smallest. (See below). > With this definition, you could not expect firefox or thunderbird to run, > nor could you use ruby on rails, eclipse, ..., or most anything else > that one might find in the debian package repository - unless you also > downloaded a large set of dependent packages. Exactly. The universe is not the core. > If close to 100% of the end users of these distros will need to go out > and find/download/configure/install the same large set of "middleware" > just to get to the point where they can run the apps they want to use, > those distros will fail. Just like Solaris is failing in this same market, > they won't actually be meeting the needs of the users they are targeted at. > > A better definition, IMO, is one that acknowledges that a larger core > is needed - one that includes some of the following: > desktop X11/GNOME/KDE/..., > web infrastructure like Apache, Java, Perl/Python/[j]Ruby/..., > database support like MySQL/PostgreSQL/..., > networking tools (ssh, sendmail, netstat, routers, diags...) > and probably a bunch of middleware libraries These all seem to me to be "layers" or "stacks" that would exist on top of the core. By definition "core" is "a small group of indispensable persons or things". Including the functionality you list seems to me to seriously change the definition of "core" as I understand it. In my vision, the core should be those things that are common across database server usage, web server usage, networking usage (Solaris box as router), desktop usage (developer workstation), etc. Including all this different stacks is not a "core" it is a "big ball of stuff". Remember the "core" is the minimum by definition. (Conversely Middleware is just that the middle layer, not the core and not the userfacing exterior) -Brian P.S. - I think I just realized what your definition of "core" is based on. I suspect it is based on defining a bundle of applications for which Sun will provide paid support. This isn't really the core of the OS, but it does make for a nice marketing buzzword. ;) (If I am reading your point of view correctly.) > -John > > > > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Mon Oct 29 16:16:59 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:16:59 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710291449m1b9f445anc8b85a67e0c6e6d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710291449m1b9f445anc8b85a67e0c6e6d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <472669EB.8060204@Sun.Com> Brandorr wrote: > P.S. - I think I just realized what your definition of "core" is based > on. I suspect it is based on defining a bundle of applications for > which Sun will provide paid support. Nope. Good try, but the shoe doesn't fit. Go try another... As I have said many times before, my POV is that of a 3rd party ISV/developer who wants to be able to deploy their application to the OpenSolaris user base. Using your own example, think of it as a set of "Blastwave Repositories" that want to be able to distribute sets of binary packages that have more than a snowball's chance in hell of running TOGETHER on multiple distros. You seem to agree: > In my vision, the core should be those things that are common across > database server usage, web server usage, networking usage (Solaris box > as router), desktop usage (developer workstation), etc. Have you ever sat down and figured out exactly what that common set is? From your suggestion that it would be "the kernel + libc + shell(s) + drivers", I don't believe you are speaking from experience. For example, the Solaris Binary Compatibility Guarantee covers much of what is found in sections 1,2 and 3 of the man pages - things that exist in Solaris with Stable or Committed interfaces. If you only had a kernel + libc, I guarantee that nothing useful would actually work. A *practical* core definition IMO is one that sits somewhere around where the Solaris Compatibility Guarantee leaves us... OpenSolaris Compatibility Core := Brian's Core + some set of layers This may indeed be a useful way to define "core" in ways that benefit appliance distro makers and device distro makers, but such a definition isn't enough (IMO) for the sweet-spot developer and desktop users we are attempting to reach. -John From webmink at sun.com Mon Oct 29 18:39:37 2007 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:39:37 +0000 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> On Oct 29, 2007, at 13:55, Brandorr wrote: >> The way I see, as of now, Indiana falls short of procedural >> justice to >> be called as a community distro. > > Agreed. How many community members have to be involved? Are there any who are explicitly excluded? Any who must be included? It seems to me that Indiana (built within the community from parts made by community members) is by definition /a/ community distro and that to prevent it being described as such is discriminatory as preventing a distro derived from OpenSolaris from describing itself as "built with OpenSolaris" or somesuch. S. From brandorr at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 19:33:30 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:33:30 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <472669EB.8060204@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710291449m1b9f445anc8b85a67e0c6e6d6@mail.gmail.com> <472669EB.8060204@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710291933w19fb08beg1d8d78eb581590fd@mail.gmail.com> On 10/29/07, John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > > P.S. - I think I just realized what your definition of "core" is based > > on. I suspect it is based on defining a bundle of applications for > > which Sun will provide paid support. > > Nope. Good try, but the shoe doesn't fit. Go try another... No more idle speculation on my part. :( > As I have said many times before, my POV is that of a 3rd party ISV/developer > who wants to be able to deploy their application to the OpenSolaris user base. > Using your own example, think of it as a set of "Blastwave Repositories" that > want to be able to distribute sets of binary packages that have more than a > snowball's chance in hell of running TOGETHER on multiple distros. I am not sure how a set of repositories could be considered the core of an operating system. I think we are getting caught up on words. What you are talking about sounds like a complete OS plus a large userspace. > You seem to agree: > > In my vision, the core should be those things that are common across > > database server usage, web server usage, networking usage (Solaris box > > as router), desktop usage (developer workstation), etc. > > Have you ever sat down and figured out exactly what that common set > is? From your suggestion that it would be "the kernel + libc + shell(s) > + drivers", I don't believe you are speaking from experience. You are correct... I have not tried to determine the common set, but I have been following osol-code and other mailing lists, which suggest that O/N includes way more than just a "kernel". In fact it was suggested that O/N is a large software consolidation that includes many things that could probably be placed in other consolidations. However, it was explained to me that the work required to breaking down O/N into a smaller core is a daunting task due to many existing and unmapped cross dependencies within the consolidation. For the needs of Sun's main revenue drivers, this work is difficult to justify. Also, for the sake of accuracy, O/N not simply a kernel. Some people continue to refer to O/N as a kernel. If this is an area of confusion, we should clarify for everyone what O/N exactly is. Because of these factors, I do not believe the core should be "bigger" than O/N, as I think you are suggesting. > example, the Solaris Binary Compatibility Guarantee covers much of what > is found in sections 1,2 and 3 of the man pages - things that exist in > Solaris with Stable or Committed interfaces. If you only had a kernel > + libc, I guarantee that nothing useful would actually work. I had considered suggesting that the core may include a minimum set of OS commands (Possibly based on POSIX). For the initial discussion I left them out to err on the side of caution. (I feel that when we define the core, it should not be a "bloated" core, so caution falls on the side of "less is more".) > A *practical* core definition IMO is one that sits somewhere around > where the Solaris Compatibility Guarantee leaves us... I am not familiar enough with the Solaris Compatibility Guarantee to comment. If it requires a full Solaris install to provide the guarantee, I think that core and compatibility layer must remain separate concepts/labels. > OpenSolaris Compatibility Core := Brian's Core + some set of layers I think we are on the same page, but I am not quite sure if there should be multiple definitions of core. > This may indeed be a useful way to define "core" in ways that benefit > appliance distro makers and device distro makers, but such a definition > isn't enough (IMO) for the sweet-spot developer and desktop users we are > attempting to reach. > > -John Hmm... I think this is the disconnect. I am looking at everything through the eyes of a server administrator. You say the target market is the developer desktop. There have also been multiple statements that Indiana is the future of Solaris servers, so I feel applying my viewpoint is valid. As example, I've never "needed" X11, as I don't use Solaris for desktop. In my view X11 might not be a "core component" when it is potentially not needed by the "server layer"? (This is an example.) What am I missing? Cheers, Brian P.S. - Now I am starting to think about the difference between the SunOS operating System, and the Solaris Operating Environment. -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From alan.coopersmith at sun.com Mon Oct 29 19:40:24 2007 From: alan.coopersmith at sun.com (Alan Coopersmith) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:40:24 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710291933w19fb08beg1d8d78eb581590fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710291449m1b9f445anc8b85a67e0c6e6d6@mail.gmail.com> <472669EB.8060204@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710291933w19fb08beg1d8d78eb581590fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47269998.7050901@sun.com> Brandorr wrote: > Hmm... I think this is the disconnect. I am looking at everything > through the eyes of a server administrator. You say the target market > is the developer desktop. There have also been multiple statements > that Indiana is the future of Solaris servers, so I feel applying my > viewpoint is valid. As example, I've never "needed" X11, as I don't > use Solaris for desktop. In my view X11 might not be a "core > component" when it is potentially not needed by the "server layer"? Even if you disregard the desktop, you'll need stuff in your "core" that comes from outside O/N - libm & libxml2 (which SMF depends on) are the two most obvious bits that spring to mind. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Mon Oct 29 20:39:13 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:39:13 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4726A761.3020507@sun.com> John Plocher wrote: > Brandorr wrote: >> I'd think core would be a subset of ON. (The minimum required to >> run backward compatible OpenSolaris binaries. Maybe the kernel + libc >> + shell(s) + drivers). > > > While this may indeed be a definition for "the absolute smallest" core > possible, I don't believe for a moment that it is useful. Certainly not > to users who will want to *do* something with their system, like > download and run applications. I've thought about this quite a bit. I think you could define the core to be the absolute minimum to get to a console prompt, like Brian mentioned, and that would be relatively uncontroversial. This would have been somewhat in line with what ISVs have typically cared about previously, and the guarantees Sun might have provided best with Solaris. But it seems absolutely in line with what constructors may want to start with to create their various tailor made distributions to suit their need. I would imagine though, that appliances may be a different ball game. However, as time continues, I have no doubt you'll see more and more things written to open source components on top of that base eg. postgres, python, GTK+. Those components have the same binary compatibility concerns in their day to day development like ON traditionally has, but do I think that makes them any less valuable? No, absolutely not. > If close to 100% of the end users of these distros will need to go out > and find/download/configure/install the same large set of "middleware" > just to get to the point where they can run the apps they want to use, > those distros will fail. Just like Solaris is failing in this same market, > they won't actually be meeting the needs of the users they are targeted at. > > A better definition, IMO, is one that acknowledges that a larger core > is needed - one that includes some of the following: > desktop X11/GNOME/KDE/..., > web infrastructure like Apache, Java, Perl/Python/[j]Ruby/..., > database support like MySQL/PostgreSQL/..., > networking tools (ssh, sendmail, netstat, routers, diags...) > and probably a bunch of middleware libraries I agree with John here that we need to think at how we may expand our definition of the 'core' to meet the market demand - I've been struggling somewhat how best to achieve that, within the confines of being able to produce something solid from a trademark perspective. Glynn From rich.teer at rite-group.com Mon Oct 29 20:41:50 2007 From: rich.teer at rite-group.com (Rich Teer) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Simon Phipps wrote: > How many community members have to be involved? Are there any who are > explicitly excluded? Any who must be included? It seems to me that > Indiana (built within the community from parts made by community > members) is by definition /a/ community distro and that to prevent it > being described as such is discriminatory as preventing a distro > derived from OpenSolaris from describing itself as "built with > OpenSolaris" or somesuch. Agreed. However, I do take issue with Indiana (or any other distro for that matter) positioning itself as *the* community distro. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com From brandorr at opensolaris.org Mon Oct 29 20:44:30 2007 From: brandorr at opensolaris.org (Brandorr) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:44:30 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> Message-ID: <5b5090780710292044y144fa783n8a796ee59059c711@mail.gmail.com> On 10/29/07, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2007, at 13:55, Brandorr wrote: > > >> The way I see, as of now, Indiana falls short of procedural > >> justice to > >> be called as a community distro. > > > > Agreed. > > How many community members have to be involved? Are there any who are > explicitly excluded? Any who must be included? It seems to me that > Indiana (built within the community from parts made by community > members) is by definition /a/ community distro and that to prevent it > being described as such is discriminatory as preventing a distro > derived from OpenSolaris from describing itself as "built with > OpenSolaris" or somesuch. Simon, Part of this is perception. It seems to many people, that much of the planning and discussion that went into Indiana did not happen outside of Sun walls. While this in an of itself does not prevent future consideration, it should register caution when calling it "The" community distro, as I think Shiv was weighing in on. I register further concern because, a non-insignificant portion of the design criteria for Indiana is based on Sun's undisclosed, and non-technical "business reasons". I will say this. I have been impressed with the commitment that I have seen expressed by Sun's management to finding a proper balance between Sun's needs, and those of the community. I advise continuing with a light and cautious touch, as the choices make in the next few weeks are going to be lasting. Cheers, Brian > > S. > > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Mon Oct 29 21:04:59 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:04:59 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710292044y144fa783n8a796ee59059c711@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> <5b5090780710292044y144fa783n8a796ee59059c711@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4726AD6B.9050308@sun.com> Brandorr wrote: > While this in an of itself does not prevent future consideration, it > should register caution when calling it "The" community distro, as I > think Shiv was weighing in on. I register further concern because, a > non-insignificant portion of the design criteria for Indiana is based > on Sun's undisclosed, and non-technical "business reasons". There's nothing undisclosed about it. The reason why we came up with the original problem statement (again, intentionally high level) was that it best described our goal for how we might lower the barriers to adoption and consequently grow the eco-system - http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/resources/problem_statement/ You'll note that it doesn't touch on details for how to make the best possible operating system with respect to storage so that Sun can sell hardware or any other possibility. It's a straightforward attempt at providing a distribution mechanism to focus the energies of each and every project group out on opensolaris.org to deliver their software to *real users* so they also can see what a kick ass set of software we the OpenSolaris community are producing. Glynn From elw at stderr.org Mon Oct 29 22:26:51 2007 From: elw at stderr.org (elw at stderr.org) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:26:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] OT, but Re: Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710291210i53b13bc6jeb31a2cdf5bb063f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >>> Most userland I believe is built with gcc and ABI compatibility issues >>> might crop up due to linker differences. I expect it to have some more >> >> OSOL is supposed to build with gcc, so one would hope that ABI issues >> would be very, very slight -- as long as all of the required libraries >> are installed and available. > > No, I'm fairly certain it is built with Sun Studio with only very > specific portions being built with gcc. The most problematic portions > would be any C++ stuff. Subtle semantic confusion re my words "supposed to build" - I meant "is supposed to be compilable", rather than that "OSOL is in the habit of building with this"... Not being buildable with GCC is sufficient for filing a bug. ;) See http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/gcc/ Whether it actually *gets* built with Studio or gcc - and you're right, Studio is normally what gets used - is a subtly different matter. ;-) --elijah From ndo at unikservice.com Tue Oct 30 01:31:03 2007 From: ndo at unikservice.com (Nicolas Dorfsman) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:31:03 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710291933w19fb08beg1d8d78eb581590fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710291449m1b9f445anc8b85a67e0c6e6d6@mail.gmail.com> <472669EB.8060204@Sun.Com> <5b5090780710291933w19fb08beg1d8d78eb581590fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0DDC0BDD-2BE3-4A83-9450-5F1D691FB6CF@unikservice.com> Le 30 oct. 07 ? 03:33, Brandorr a ?crit : > On 10/29/07, John Plocher wrote: >> This may indeed be a useful way to define "core" in ways that benefit >> appliance distro makers and device distro makers, but such a >> definition >> isn't enough (IMO) for the sweet-spot developer and desktop users >> we are >> attempting to reach. >> >> -John > > Hmm... I think this is the disconnect. I am looking at everything > through the eyes of a server administrator. You say the target market > is the developer desktop. There have also been multiple statements > that Indiana is the future of Solaris servers, so I feel applying my > viewpoint is valid. As example, I've never "needed" X11, as I don't > use Solaris for desktop. In my view X11 might not be a "core > component" when it is potentially not needed by the "server layer"? > (This is an example.) I did the same. It was painful in my first event as user group reprensative. Users are expecting an Operating System with "graphical experience" even after watching this : ;-) So X11/Gnome may be a core component... From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 04:27:20 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:20 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <47271518.r20SAD/BrH7ww88K%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > Martin Bochnig wrote: > > I identify the term "OpenSolaris" with OS/Net. > > I understand your perspective; your comments make perfect sense in > light of it. > > I, on the other hand, identify the term "OpenSolaris" with a complete > operating environment that comprises OS/Net, Install, X, GNOME, Java, > and possibly some parts of SWF, BlastWave and Debian. I see a major missconception in your definition. Linux is only the kernel while a "Linux distribution" is Linux + additional software. Your list contains a lot of software that is not Solaris specific and thus is "additional software" that just makes a OpenSolaris distribution. > I also firmly believe that restricting the definition to simply OS/Net > (such that "OpenSolaris" is equivalent to "the Linux Kernel") is > shortsighted, in that it effectively keeps us from doing anything > other than reinventing Linux Distro Hell. Once the Packaging + Install software is published as OpenSource, we may add it to the list of Software that is part of OpenSolaris. Currently this list is obly a few bits more than ON. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 04:59:57 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:59:57 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <823E7680-0ABD-46DB-AACA-478106F37114@Sun.COM> <472067E3.8000508@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47271cbd.5STgGVI9gIU9myvE%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ > > distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also > > true for Sun initiated distrributions. > > That's true Joerg, but it isn't fair to the community to make them > wait for that to happen. We need to find a way to live with the current state. > There's nothing that says we can't update the trademark usage > guidelines later once we have such a test suite. > > So perhaps one of the things we can do for now is continue discussing > and adjusting the rest of the proposed guidelines and then start a > project for a test suite once we have a reference distribution. > > Once such a thing is done we can revisit and update the proposed > guidelines to match that. > > Remember, we want users to be able to start using the distribution > constructor as soon as possible and encourage people to create their > own distributions with it. The problem with this discussion is that it is a mix of trademark issues with technical decisions. Maybe it helps to first understand what OpenSolaris is. OpenSolaris is not: - Xorg - GNOME - Other GNU tools - ... This software is just add ons to create a complete distro from the OpenSolaris bits. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 05:10:04 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:10:04 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > It seems that you forgot an important issue: > > > > If someone starts to call a single distribution "OpenSolaris", > > > Please show me where in the current proposal-under-seige (ahem, > I mean discussion) it allows for any single distribution to > do so. Some people seem to be interested in having such a distro. > There are only two scenarios that I can imagine would lead there: > > 1) Someone makes a distro that is exactly and only comprised > of the "core". We need to define what the core is. This is extremeluy important if you like to include distributions in the embedded area. > 2) Someone disregards these guidelines... > > It sounds like, from your comments, that you are also in the > "OpenSolaris means ON" camp, rather than in the "OpenSolaris > is a complete operating environment suitable for deploying > 3rd party applications" one. OpenSolaris is not a complete Operating environment because you need free third party software in addition to the OpenSolaris bits in order to create an OpenSolaris based distro that is a complete operating environment. > > all other OpenSolaris based distributions would need to do the same > > or at least make it much more obvious that they are also based on > > OpenSolaris-ON and that the distribution called "OpenSolaris" is no more. The main missunderstanding seems to be in identifying the OpenSolaris bits. OpenSolaris is source that is created by _this_ community. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 05:12:51 2007 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:12:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <4726A761.3020507@sun.com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> <47264FD7.9070007@Sun.Com> <4726A761.3020507@sun.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Glynn Foster wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > >> If close to 100% of the end users of these distros will need to go out >> and find/download/configure/install the same large set of "middleware" >> just to get to the point where they can run the apps they want to use, >> those distros will fail. Just like Solaris is failing in this same market, >> they won't actually be meeting the needs of the users they are targeted at. >> >> A better definition, IMO, is one that acknowledges that a larger core >> is needed - one that includes some of the following: >> desktop X11/GNOME/KDE/..., >> web infrastructure like Apache, Java, Perl/Python/[j]Ruby/..., >> database support like MySQL/PostgreSQL/..., >> networking tools (ssh, sendmail, netstat, routers, diags...) >> and probably a bunch of middleware libraries > > I agree with John here that we need to think at how we may expand our definition > of the 'core' to meet the market demand... > I'm not sure I agree. When we talk about defining a core for the purposes of compatibility compliance and testing, there are two discrete "sub-markets": - Constructors (developers) of desktop instances - Constructors of non desktop instances (e.g. appliances) And they are equally vital. So we need 2 parallel projects defining 2 core definitions. Presumably one would be a subset of the other though? From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 05:18:14 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:18:14 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216800.1020006@gmx.com> <472172B7.80306@Sun.Com> <4721f0d7.hxnBLWWUAdKM8OmV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47272106.VvG5iu01XToPjXtD%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > Without Admin/Install, there is no common way to install things > > > Without X, there are no GUI apps > > > Without Java, > > > Without SFW (or some set of Debian or Blastwave or ...) there won't > > > be much Open Source stuff > > > > This is why currently an "OpenSolaris" distro just needs to be based on ON. > > But that's almost useless to users who want some level of confidence > that their app will run on the various OpenSolaris distributions that > will exist. "Linux" is almost useless to users as it is a kernel only. > ON by itself doesn't even include a package manager, install program, > or other things. I am willing to expand the "OpenSolaris branding" idea on other bits that have been created by this community (which includes Sun). > > We may create different rules for the future but I still don't like to see > > a distro that calls itself just "OpenSolaris". > > Well Joerg; I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Users are > expecting something to be called "OpenSolaris" and I think it's very > important that we meet that expectation. We need to find a base for out discussion and for this reason we need to find a common way to understand things first. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 05:20:18 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:20:18 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <4720BB9C.4040806@Sun.Com> <4720E71A.9040303@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4721f7ce.rIOcQekAqftoGL/e%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47272182.AWmKS9s1pdcoCQoY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > > > As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ > > > > distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also > > > > true for Sun initiated distrributions. > > > > > > That's true Joerg, but it isn't fair to the community to make them > > > wait for that to happen. > > > > We should not create a policy that is based on claims like "Sun's distro > > is always compliant". > > Sun doesn't have a distro; the proposed reference distribution is a > distribution by the OpenSolaris community initiated by a member of the > community that happens to work for Sun. The Sun distro is called SXCE, did you forget about this? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 05:15:35 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:15:35 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html __/__ Re: Linux as example. In-Reply-To: References: <5b5090780710251647s10830e3bg351b2e3ec0c0a8fc@mail.gmail.com> <47214A16.9050902@gmx.com> <47215219.4030209@gmx.com> <472157E0.4090001@gmx.com> <47216E32.5080400@Sun.Com> <4721efaf.c8xedBTAc/PA44T8%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47272067.R+EicTK32bb6p90D%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > You cannot prevent this from happening by just using trademark rules. > > You can though to a certain extent; people don't get to call > themselves OpenSolaris or use the trademark in certain ways if they're > not compatible. > > That's the beauty of a trademark; it can only be used if it meets the > guidelines established by the holder. The problem with this discussion is that it is no simple trademark discussion. You may always use trademark names in a descriptive way, e.g. "based on OpenSolaris". Try to let the fragment "based on OpenSolaris" interact on you for some time. You will find that this claim does not apply to e.g. GNOME. Now please let us continue this discussion on bits where the claim "based on OpenSolaris" is true. This will make the discussion much simpler. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 05:34:20 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:34:20 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472724cc.ujtAFG4XUfa7K0XG%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > So what's wrong with being limited to the "Built with" terminology? > Your case perfectly fits that usage. You may not want your > distribution to be diluted, but the whole point of you being limited > to that branding is because your theoretical distribution (no offense) > has diluted the original. > > As you say, you have stripped out so many things, there is almost no > guarantee that applications, etc. might continue to work as expected > on your distribution. That's kind of the point behind the usage > restriction. Even if you were allowed to use "OpenSolaris" in your > name the onus would still be on you to educate users that you weren't > really a completely compatible distribution. As such, I don't see how > being limited to the "built with" terminology puts you at any more of > a disadvantage. We need to create levels of compatibility. Let me make an example: GNOME is third party software and not part of OpenSolaris. If you require GNOME for your software in order to make it work, you are beyond the OpenSolaris scope. Compatibility tests thus could mean: 1) OpenSolaris compatibility means compatibility to the "OpenSolaris bits" 2) Extended (find a better word) compatiblity means OpenSolaris compatibility _and_ the availability of other software on the distro under test. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 05:48:18 2007 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:48:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > >> There are only two scenarios that I can imagine would lead there: >> >> 1) Someone makes a distro that is exactly and only comprised >> of the "core". > > We need to define what the core is. > > This is extremeluy important if you like to include distributions > in the embedded area. > In the software world, volume wins. So I'd say yes, definitely, we should emphasize the embedded area as well as the developer desktop area. Eric From isaac at sun.com Tue Oct 30 06:01:42 2007 From: isaac at sun.com (Isaac) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html__/__ Re: Linux as example. Message-ID: <0JQQ00MDM6T00AB0@mail-amer.sun.com> Hello, How about starting with a wiki matrix listing (horizontally) requirements from users, developers,community at large and vertically showing which distro's (Nexenta,SXDE,etc) satisfy [or not yet] these requirements. If such a thing exists, I'd love to know where. gnusolaris.org? This maybe one step toward common understanding. Regards, Isaac ------Original Message------ From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) To: swalker at opensolaris.org Cc: trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org Sent: Tue 10/30/2007 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [trademark-policy-dev] http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html__/__ Re: Linux as example. "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > Without Admin/Install, there is no common way to install things > > > Without X, there are no GUI apps > > > Without Java, > > > Without SFW (or some set of Debian or Blastwave or ...) there won't > > > be much Open Source stuff > > > > This is why currently an "OpenSolaris" distro just needs to be based on ON. > > But that's almost useless to users who want some level of confidence > that their app will run on the various OpenSolaris distributions that > will exist. "Linux" is almost useless to users as it is a kernel only. > ON by itself doesn't even include a package manager, install program, > or other things. I am willing to expand the "OpenSolaris branding" idea on other bits that have been created by this community (which includes Sun). > > We may create different rules for the future but I still don't like to see > > a distro that calls itself just "OpenSolaris". > > Well Joerg; I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Users are > expecting something to be called "OpenSolaris" and I think it's very > important that we meet that expectation. We need to find a base for out discussion and for this reason we need to find a common way to understand things first. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ trademark-policy-dev mailing list trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 30 06:23:52 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:23:52 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [Fwd: The new and improved OpenSolaris TM guidelines] In-Reply-To: <47272182.AWmKS9s1pdcoCQoY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <471FE48B.6050704@sun.com> <5b5090780710251158g231c8a8wb0c84cfc8d78565e@mail.gmail.com> <4720EAB6.7030601@sun.com> <5b5090780710251509q5b7c44eaj984f016fd6773f84@mail.gmail.com> <4721e66e.5SXDzArF6cYmGjRV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4721f7ce.rIOcQekAqftoGL/e%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47272182.AWmKS9s1pdcoCQoY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 30/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > On 26/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > > > > > As long as no publically availaible conformance test is available _no_ > > > > > distribution can claim provable compatibility. This is of course also > > > > > true for Sun initiated distrributions. > > > > > > > > That's true Joerg, but it isn't fair to the community to make them > > > > wait for that to happen. > > > > > > We should not create a policy that is based on claims like "Sun's distro > > > is always compliant". > > > > Sun doesn't have a distro; the proposed reference distribution is a > > distribution by the OpenSolaris community initiated by a member of the > > community that happens to work for Sun. > > The Sun distro is called SXCE, did you forget about this? No; the implication was that Indiana is a Sun distro which is not true. Indiana is nothing more than the aggregation of a set of community projects organised by member(s) of the community that work for Sun. The discussion was not about SXCE which will go away someday anyway. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 30 06:33:20 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:33:20 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: <472724cc.ujtAFG4XUfa7K0XG%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <472724cc.ujtAFG4XUfa7K0XG%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 30/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > So what's wrong with being limited to the "Built with" terminology? > > Your case perfectly fits that usage. You may not want your > > distribution to be diluted, but the whole point of you being limited > > to that branding is because your theoretical distribution (no offense) > > has diluted the original. > > > > As you say, you have stripped out so many things, there is almost no > > guarantee that applications, etc. might continue to work as expected > > on your distribution. That's kind of the point behind the usage > > restriction. Even if you were allowed to use "OpenSolaris" in your > > name the onus would still be on you to educate users that you weren't > > really a completely compatible distribution. As such, I don't see how > > being limited to the "built with" terminology puts you at any more of > > a disadvantage. > > We need to create levels of compatibility. > > Let me make an example: > > GNOME is third party software and not part of OpenSolaris. If you require > GNOME for your software in order to make it work, you are beyond the > OpenSolaris scope. > > Compatibility tests thus could mean: > > 1) OpenSolaris compatibility means compatibility to the "OpenSolaris bits" > > 2) Extended (find a better word) compatiblity means OpenSolaris > compatibility _and_ the availability of other software on the distro > under test. While from a technical perspective that might be useful; it's absolutely *useless* to users. Users are going to run graphical applications. They're going to expect to be able to download and run graphical applications on *any* OpenSolaris distribution that claims to be compatible. Part of this means expecting things like GNOME, SDL, OpenAL (possibly), etc. I had this argument with Stefan the other day; an operating system is not just the lowest level services. It is the entire package provided by a distributor. The commonly accepted definition (see wikipedia, et al.) is that an operating system is comprised of all the things that define it. Few people would argue that CDE is an integrated part of the Solaris operating system; just as few people would argue that Aqua (or whatever you want to call it now) is an integrated part of the Mac OS X desktop operating system. While GNOME may not be produced *by* the OpenSolaris community; it certainly contains contributions by the OpenSolaris community. Considering how much effort members of the OpenSolaris community have made into making GNOME work on OpenSolaris (hal, etc.) it's rather silly to say that the it isn't "part" of it in some way. I believe the one of the reasons that most of the Linux world fails, and that they continue to do so, is because many distributions treat their system as a collection of parts instead of as an integrated system. Distributions like Ubuntu have flourished because they don't treat the desktop and other parts of the system as mere "add-ons"; everything that ships with it out of the box is a first-class citizen that has to work exactly as its supposed to. When you ask a user if GNOME is part of Ubuntu; they're going to tell you yes, of course, GNOME is the official desktop of Ubuntu and its part of it; they wouldn't be wrong either. So, assuming that we do indeed eventually have a distribution named "OpenSolaris" (which I believe we should) and GNOME comes with it, than it is accurate to say that GNOME is part of the OpenSolaris distribution. It is also accurate to say right now that GNOME is part of the OpenSolaris community, because our community has made it so. Its time that people got this silly computer science purist view of operating systems out of their head; users have long since moved past that rather incorrect definition and I believe many developers have as well. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 07:39:55 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:55 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> <47231c6d.PKAFY4ME5j9th6gI%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4727423b.DySUmzNJH5pdUYSZ%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > Solaris started as a complete OS.... but if restructuring OpenSolaris > > goes ahead the same way as now, we may end at a state where OpenSolaris > > is (like Linux) no more than a kernel. > > I would hope not; I think one of OpenSolaris' biggest strengths is > that it's not just a kernel on top of some random OS components (GNU); > but a complete solution. If people concentrate on the kernel and forget about the user space application (as it is done on Solaris since anout 1997), we end up with just the state that there is only a kernel. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From alan.coopersmith at sun.com Tue Oct 30 07:43:39 2007 From: alan.coopersmith at sun.com (Alan Coopersmith) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:43:39 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > OpenSolaris is source that is created by _this_ community. That's an awfully small amount of code then, considering how much of O/N was created by AT&T or BSD. Sure, Sun has modified it a lot since, but Sun has modified GNOME and X a lot over the years too. You'ld be left with the truly original bits like DTrace and ZFS, with no framework to run them in. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From alan.coopersmith at sun.com Tue Oct 30 07:50:59 2007 From: alan.coopersmith at sun.com (Alan Coopersmith) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:50:59 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> Message-ID: <472744D3.1020204@sun.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > How many community members have to be involved? Are there any who are > explicitly excluded? Any who must be included? It seems to me that > Indiana (built within the community from parts made by community > members) is by definition /a/ community distro and that to prevent it > being described as such is discriminatory as preventing a distro > derived from OpenSolaris from describing itself as "built with > OpenSolaris" or somesuch. Hopefully it will change, but almost all work on Indiana engineering I've seen to date is happening on Sun-internal-only mailing lists, in Sun-internal-only IRC channels, and at Sun-internal-only meetings, so it's not yet a "community" project. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 30 08:06:04 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:06:04 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Indiana, an OpenSolaris Distribution In-Reply-To: <4727423b.DySUmzNJH5pdUYSZ%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4d9b53db0710261429p11151cf0g74118fd14e91d1c9@mail.gmail.com> <4d9b53db0710261511g12170620ne738a0f08b731e70@mail.gmail.com> <47231c6d.PKAFY4ME5j9th6gI%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727423b.DySUmzNJH5pdUYSZ%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 30/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > Solaris started as a complete OS.... but if restructuring OpenSolaris > > > goes ahead the same way as now, we may end at a state where OpenSolaris > > > is (like Linux) no more than a kernel. > > > > I would hope not; I think one of OpenSolaris' biggest strengths is > > that it's not just a kernel on top of some random OS components (GNU); > > but a complete solution. > > If people concentrate on the kernel and forget about the user space application > (as it is done on Solaris since anout 1997), we end up with just the state > that there is only a kernel. I think that is a different goal than most users have. It is obvious that there needs to be two core definitions. I will attempt to create a matrix later tonight.- -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 08:23:04 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:23:04 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Defining "core" and "compatibility test". In-Reply-To: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> References: <5b5090780710291357u3a9f63b8t8872b3641a1e1607@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47274c58.rq3F5o1HnC+XFZgH%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Brandorr wrote: > As John pointed out, defining these will help. For compatibility test, > I will post a message to the testing community group. > > To define "core", I am not sure that I know which CG would be the > best. I'd think core would be a subset of ON. (The minimum required to > run backward compatible OpenSolaris binaries. Maybe the kernel + libc > + shell(s) + drivers). You need to add at least some basic commands in order to make most things work at all. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 08:36:08 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:36:08 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> Message-ID: <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > OpenSolaris is source that is created by _this_ community. > > That's an awfully small amount of code then, considering how > much of O/N was created by AT&T or BSD. Sure, Sun has modified OK, let us say that is developed or maintained by this community. > it a lot since, but Sun has modified GNOME and X a lot over the > years too. You'ld be left with the truly original bits like > DTrace and ZFS, with no framework to run them in. Although X and GNOME have strong connections into Sun, they are nothing specific to OpenSolaris. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From alan.coopersmith at sun.com Tue Oct 30 08:55:28 2007 From: alan.coopersmith at sun.com (Alan Coopersmith) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:55:28 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <472753F0.60307@sun.com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > Although X and GNOME have strong connections into Sun, they are nothing > specific to OpenSolaris. So now that FreeBSD & MacOS X have ZFS & DTrace, they are not specific to OpenSolaris, and thus not part of OpenSolaris? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 08:54:39 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:54:39 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: References: <472724cc.ujtAFG4XUfa7K0XG%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <472753bf.aYS3tdtVzgMt6FLP%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > Let me make an example: > > > > GNOME is third party software and not part of OpenSolaris. If you require > > GNOME for your software in order to make it work, you are beyond the > > OpenSolaris scope. > > > > Compatibility tests thus could mean: > > > > 1) OpenSolaris compatibility means compatibility to the "OpenSolaris bits" > > > > 2) Extended (find a better word) compatiblity means OpenSolaris > > compatibility _and_ the availability of other software on the distro > > under test. > > While from a technical perspective that might be useful; it's > absolutely *useless* to users. If we are talking about trademarks, we would need to have teechnical based results. > Users are going to run graphical applications. They're going to expect > to be able to download and run graphical applications on *any* > OpenSolaris distribution that claims to be compatible. Part of this > means expecting things like GNOME, SDL, OpenAL (possibly), etc. GNOME is still not an OpenSolaris product. > I had this argument with Stefan the other day; an operating system is > not just the lowest level services. It is the entire package provided > by a distributor. The commonly accepted definition (see wikipedia, et > al.) is that an operating system is comprised of all the things that > define it. Few people would argue that CDE is an integrated part of > the Solaris operating system; just as few people would argue that Aqua > (or whatever you want to call it now) is an integrated part of the Mac > OS X desktop operating system. This seem to be something I would rather call "Operatung environment" in contrary to what I call Operating System. > While GNOME may not be produced *by* the OpenSolaris community; it > certainly contains contributions by the OpenSolaris community. Distributions come with software that may not part of the OS. > Considering how much effort members of the OpenSolaris community have > made into making GNOME work on OpenSolaris (hal, etc.) it's rather > silly to say that the it isn't "part" of it in some way. Linux distributions also need to spend effort on porting GNOME. I see nothing specific to OpenSolaris. It is nice to see that hal on Linux distributions disturbes CD/DVD writing while it does not on Solaris. This just proves that there may be better and less goot ports. > I believe the one of the reasons that most of the Linux world fails, > and that they continue to do so, is because many distributions treat > their system as a collection of parts instead of as an integrated > system. Distributions like Ubuntu have flourished because they don't > treat the desktop and other parts of the system as mere "add-ons"; > everything that ships with it out of the box is a first-class citizen > that has to work exactly as its supposed to. The way Solaris evolves, Solaris distributions tend to become more and more a collection of parts too. > When you ask a user if GNOME is part of Ubuntu; they're going to tell > you yes, of course, GNOME is the official desktop of Ubuntu and its > part of it; they wouldn't be wrong either. This is the difference between "OpenSolaris" and an OpenSolaris based distro. "OpenSolaris" does not contain GNUME, most OpenSolaris based distros do. > So, assuming that we do indeed eventually have a distribution named > "OpenSolaris" (which I believe we should) and GNOME comes with it, > than it is accurate to say that GNOME is part of the OpenSolaris > distribution. See above and understand why I do not like to confuse people by creating a distro named OpenSolaris. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 09:09:45 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:09:45 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47275749.7040506@Sun.Com> [pushing this BACK to trademark-policy-dev] Joerg Schilling wrote: > Although X and GNOME have strong connections into Sun, they are nothing > specific to OpenSolaris. Again, we get back to the (lack of an) operational definition of OpenSolaris. Here's mine: OpenSolaris (n) 1) the community organized around the open source development efforts hosted on opensolaris.org. Many of the components found there were part of Sun Microsystem's proprietary Solaris product family, while others are integrations and enhancements of 3rd party FOSS projects. Some notable ones are the kernel (aka OS/Net, aka Nevada), kernel features (such as device drivers, xVM, DTrace and ZFS), documentation, I18N and L10N, clustering and HPC, installation & packaging, printing, storage and storage administration, as well as collections of 3rd party FOSS projects (SFW, the X Window System, the GNOME desktop, development tools...). (n) 2) a distro that showcases the above community. If we were talking about a distro named "ON" or "Nevada", I'd wholeheartedly agree with Brian and Joerg's perspective, but we aren't - we are talking about our entire, inclusive community. -John From teleman at kde.org Tue Oct 30 08:44:51 2007 From: teleman at kde.org (Stefan Teleman) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:44:51 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: References: <472724cc.ujtAFG4XUfa7K0XG%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <200710301144.52547.teleman@kde.org> On Tuesday 30 October 2007 09:33, Shawn Walker wrote: > I had this argument with Stefan the other day; an operating system > is not just the lowest level services. It is the entire package > provided by a distributor. The commonly accepted definition (see > wikipedia, et al.) is that an operating system is comprised of all > the things that define it. Not really. Although that would probably be a valid definition for an Existentialist Operating System [Heidegger, Camus, Sartre, all that]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer and provides programmers with an interface used to access those resources. An operating system processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems. Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software. It would seem that the author of the Wikipedia entry for Operating System put in some effort in making a clear distinction between the OS [Operating System], System Software and Application Software, and in explicitly defining a layered structure: Operating System -> System Software -> Application Software, with each layer fulfilling a bounded set of responsibilities. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. teleman at kde.org From webmink at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 09:12:22 2007 From: webmink at Sun.COM (Simon Phipps) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:12:22 +0000 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <9901A714-E391-431C-B796-E2A8F2718090@Sun.COM> [Trimming cc list] On Oct 30, 2007, at 12:48, Eric Boutilier wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> John Plocher wrote: >> >>> There are only two scenarios that I can imagine would lead there: >>> >>> 1) Someone makes a distro that is exactly and only comprised >>> of the "core". >> >> We need to define what the core is. >> >> This is extremeluy important if you like to include distributions >> in the embedded area. >> > > In the software world, volume wins. So I'd say yes, definitely, > we should emphasize the embedded area as well as the developer > desktop area. But in that world, each instance is a matter for custom engineering where a compatibility promise is of far less relevance. The "Core" concept is chiefly an aid to the mutual compatibility of general- purpose distributions. Restricting its scope to ensure the core function can be embedded is not obviously necessary. S. From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Oct 30 09:39:20 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:39:20 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <472753F0.60307@sun.com> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <472753F0.60307@sun.com> Message-ID: <47275e38.T5/CQjlSwKLoA6xu%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Although X and GNOME have strong connections into Sun, they are nothing > > specific to OpenSolaris. > > So now that FreeBSD & MacOS X have ZFS & DTrace, they are not > specific to OpenSolaris, and thus not part of OpenSolaris? This is technology that has been developed for OpenSolaris. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From alan.coopersmith at sun.com Tue Oct 30 09:42:46 2007 From: alan.coopersmith at sun.com (Alan Coopersmith) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:42:46 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47275e38.T5/CQjlSwKLoA6xu%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <472753F0.60307@sun.com> <47275e38.T5/CQjlSwKLoA6xu%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <47275F06.9060807@sun.com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Although X and GNOME have strong connections into Sun, they are nothing >>> specific to OpenSolaris. >> So now that FreeBSD & MacOS X have ZFS & DTrace, they are not >> specific to OpenSolaris, and thus not part of OpenSolaris? > > This is technology that has been developed for OpenSolaris. Okay, so then the portions of Xorg & GNOME that were developed for OpenSolaris (Trusted Extensions support, DTrace probes, etc.) are part of OpenSolaris, but the rest of them are not? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 30 09:45:04 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:45:04 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] "Based on OpenSolaris Tech" clause is too loose? In-Reply-To: <200710301144.52547.teleman@kde.org> References: <472724cc.ujtAFG4XUfa7K0XG%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <200710301144.52547.teleman@kde.org> Message-ID: On 30/10/2007, Stefan Teleman wrote: > On Tuesday 30 October 2007 09:33, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > I had this argument with Stefan the other day; an operating system > > is not just the lowest level services. It is the entire package > > provided by a distributor. The commonly accepted definition (see > > wikipedia, et al.) is that an operating system is comprised of all > > the things that define it. > > Not really. Although that would probably be a valid definition for an > Existentialist Operating System [Heidegger, Camus, Sartre, all that]. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system > > > An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of > the resources of a computer and provides programmers with an > interface used to access those resources. An operating system > processes system data and user input, and responds by allocating and > managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users > and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, > an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and > allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input > and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file > systems. Most operating systems come with an application that > provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as > a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating > system forms a platform for other system software and for application > software. > > > It would seem that the author of the Wikipedia entry for Operating > System put in some effort in making a clear distinction between the > OS [Operating System], System Software and Application Software, and > in explicitly defining a layered structure: Operating System -> > System Software -> Application Software, with each layer fulfilling a > bounded set of responsibilities. I don't get the same meaning you do from that text. What is a window manager than a glorified manager of graphical resources? Hence, I do believe that the GUI that comes with an OS is part of an OS. Desktops manage resources; just different kinds of resources than what most people think of with UNIX systems. As I said before, I'm going to have to agree to disagree. I will never accept the definition of an operating system as not including the rest of the environment. In the end, it doesn't matter, you can define operating system however you want, the point is that without a "graphical resource manager" (GUI), etc. an OS is useless to most users. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 30 09:47:02 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:47:02 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <47275F06.9060807@sun.com> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4727431B.8080206@sun.com> <47274f68.6/ojH+dZyMw+EM4Z%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <472753F0.60307@sun.com> <47275e38.T5/CQjlSwKLoA6xu%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47275F06.9060807@sun.com> Message-ID: On 30/10/2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: > >>> Although X and GNOME have strong connections into Sun, they are nothing > >>> specific to OpenSolaris. > >> So now that FreeBSD & MacOS X have ZFS & DTrace, they are not > >> specific to OpenSolaris, and thus not part of OpenSolaris? > > > > This is technology that has been developed for OpenSolaris. > > Okay, so then the portions of Xorg & GNOME that were developed for OpenSolaris > (Trusted Extensions support, DTrace probes, etc.) are part of OpenSolaris, > but the rest of them are not? To which I would add, are all of the technologies that were originally developed for the original AT&T also not part of OpenSolaris? It's silly to pick arbitrary boundaries like that to define what is part of an OS. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 13:14:51 2007 From: shivakumar.gn at gmail.com (S h i v) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:44:51 +0530 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <472744D3.1020204@sun.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> <472744D3.1020204@sun.com> Message-ID: <319ee2b10710301314oec354c1vcb10fa30cbabea7c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/30/07, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > > How many community members have to be involved? Are there any who are > > explicitly excluded? Any who must be included? It seems to me that > > Indiana (built within the community from parts made by community > > members) is by definition /a/ community distro and that to prevent it > > being described as such is discriminatory as preventing a distro > > derived from OpenSolaris from describing itself as "built with > > OpenSolaris" or somesuch. > Brian and Alan put into words in a better way what I could have communicated. It is as it stands today and no discrimination about the future is made. But, sometime needs to be given to open up before considering a discussion about it being /the/ OpenSolaris distro. > Hopefully it will change, but almost all work on Indiana engineering > I've seen to date is happening on Sun-internal-only mailing lists, in > Sun-internal-only IRC channels, and at Sun-internal-only meetings, so > it's not yet a "community" project. > I am hopeful too. -Shiv From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 13:36:05 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:36:05 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <472744D3.1020204@sun.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> <472744D3.1020204@sun.com> Message-ID: <472795B5.1030409@sun.com> Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: >> How many community members have to be involved? Are there any who are >> explicitly excluded? Any who must be included? It seems to me that >> Indiana (built within the community from parts made by community >> members) is by definition /a/ community distro and that to prevent it >> being described as such is discriminatory as preventing a distro >> derived from OpenSolaris from describing itself as "built with >> OpenSolaris" or somesuch. > > Hopefully it will change, but almost all work on Indiana engineering > I've seen to date is happening on Sun-internal-only mailing lists, in > Sun-internal-only IRC channels, and at Sun-internal-only meetings, so > it's not yet a "community" project. I guarantee you it will. If you've been following some of the development, it's actually been split over caiman-discuss, pkg-discuss and indeed an internal alias, and if you've followed the commits closely, you'd actually see the thing taking shape. I think at some stage you just need to draw the line, and get the engineering done to make the schedule. It may not have been obvious to people to know where to help out, but now that we have something tangible to download, install and try out it should certainly encourage more active participation and open development. Glynn From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 18:42:39 2007 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:42:39 +0900 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Branding guidelines - some inputs - reasons as important as the votes In-Reply-To: <472795B5.1030409@sun.com> References: <319ee2b10710271121v75decb0aobb87f5572d4e713@mail.gmail.com> <5b5090780710290655k74bc4b19g7a7f01ab6e973406@mail.gmail.com> <41DB1075-73D1-4615-9BC5-EF6FDB5AC948@sun.com> <472744D3.1020204@sun.com> <472795B5.1030409@sun.com> Message-ID: <4727DD8F.1000109@sun.com> Glynn Foster wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Hopefully it will change, but almost all work on Indiana engineering >> I've seen to date is happening on Sun-internal-only mailing lists, in >> Sun-internal-only IRC channels, and at Sun-internal-only meetings, so >> it's not yet a "community" project. > > I guarantee you it will. If you've been following some of the development, it's > actually been split over caiman-discuss, pkg-discuss and indeed an internal > alias, and if you've followed the commits closely, you'd actually see the thing > taking shape. Yah, I think the external conversations have been quite open and very valuable. That's part of the development process. True, much is still internal but that's true across the entire project. Parts are open and parts are still opening. > I think at some stage you just need to draw the line, and get the engineering > done to make the schedule. It may not have been obvious to people to know where > to help out, but now that we have something tangible to download, install and > try out it should certainly encourage more active participation and open > development. I agree that it will be very helpful for massively growing the community and increasing participation on many really interesting fronts. I'm very much looking forward to it from that perspective. But moving to open development is a Sun issue and we have to do that. Again, that's not an Indiana issue so much as it's an issue across the entire project. We're getting there. :) Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris From swalker at opensolaris.org Tue Oct 30 21:14:56 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:14:56 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> Message-ID: On 30/10/2007, Ian Murdock wrote: > Let's continue working together as a community to develop a set of > branding guidelines so that other distributions may also use the > OpenSolaris brand, provided certain conditions related to compatibility > and quality are met. The first step to a branding program is to define > the OpenSolaris binary core, and I invite the community to help define > it, using the Indiana bits as a first approximation, with the > understanding that it is OK to make mistakes, leaps of faith and > simplifying assumptions as we figure this all out. This discussion has > already begun and some very productive collaboration is > already occurring--many thanks to John Plocher for getting it started. As one of many, I can definitely say I look forward to continuing discussions on this topic in our community. I think that now we have something "solid" to base our discussions upon things will be far more productive. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From webmink at sun.com Tue Oct 30 21:41:23 2007 From: webmink at sun.com (Simon Phipps) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:41:23 +0000 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> Message-ID: <87D487BD-C6B2-4438-B953-C9C4C8933C1D@sun.com> On Oct 31, 2007, at 04:14, Shawn Walker wrote: > I think that now we have something "solid" to base our discussions > upon things will be far more productive. Completely agree. It's time to evolve something tangible, the open source way. This is a real change from the caution of designing and waiting for perfection before proceeding, and I'm excited to see what we can all make of it together. S. From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 22:19:09 2007 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:19:09 +0900 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <87D487BD-C6B2-4438-B953-C9C4C8933C1D@sun.com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <87D487BD-C6B2-4438-B953-C9C4C8933C1D@sun.com> Message-ID: <4728104D.1070907@sun.com> Simon Phipps wrote: > On Oct 31, 2007, at 04:14, Shawn Walker wrote: > >> I think that now we have something "solid" to base our discussions >> upon things will be far more productive. > > Completely agree. It's time to evolve something tangible, the open > source way. This is a real change from the caution of designing and > waiting for perfection before proceeding, and I'm excited to see what > we can all make of it together. Cool. Looking forward to it. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 23:01:58 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:01:58 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> Message-ID: <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> [Followups to trademark-policy-dev, please. To post you will need to subscribe by first sending an email to trademark-policy-dev-subscribe at opensolaris.org -John ] Ian Murdock wrote: > ... The first step to a branding program is to define > the OpenSolaris binary core, and I invite the community to help define > it, using the Indiana bits as a first approximation, with the > understanding that it is OK to make mistakes, leaps of faith and > simplifying assumptions as we figure this all out. > Followups set to trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org . (At 8:04pm this evening, just as Ian was typing up his email, we experienced a ~5.6 earthquake here in San Jose. The USGS says it was effectively right under our house (9km down and 4km east, but who's counting? Coincidence? I don't think so! Thanks, Ian! :-) Ian makes a compelling point that a distro made up of everything on opensolaris.org should be called opensolaris. The question still seems to be if this view can be reconciled with Joerg's and Brian's (placeholders for many, I'm sure) minimalist perspective (i.e., OpenSolaris - the operating system - is only the kernel, libc and a shell). Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. They simply have different audiences: The OpenSolaris Operating System: At the minimalist end, we have a "miniroot" consisting of just the stuff needed to boot and get to a shell prompt on a specific device. The audience for such a "distro" seems limited to those developers actually working on a particular device. Think PowerPC and CellPhones. Think small number of dozens of people. The OpenSolaris Operating System: Moving up in the world, this miniroot gains enough drivers and userland bits to become the basis for a dedicated appliance. Since the needed bits differ based entirely on what the appliance is supposed to do, and there presumably isn't any need for the user to add new functionality to a given one, the audience for such a distro is also limited to the small set of developers actually working on the appliance. Think routers, web servers, mail servers, model railroad empires; think small number of hundreds of people. The OpenSolaris Operating Environment: At some point we have a miniroot, drivers and enough userland to produce general purpose computing devices. Although one size could fit all (XXXL?), it seems reasonable to postulate laptop, desktop, blade, cluster and enterprise variations. Each of them will be characterized by their own recipe, optimized for the task at hand: Laptops care about X and GNOME, web hosting servers care about Apache, Glassfish and python. Unlike the device and appliance distros, these general purpose distros are targeted at the volume market with the expectation that their users will want to add 3rd party features to their systems. Think volume distros. Think millions of people. From a compatibility perspective, it is probably OK to ignore the embedded device and appliance distros - there really isn't any expectation that a user could take an arbitrary precompiled binary package and install it on them. This leaves the general purpose systems. If you take all their "recipes" and compare them, you will find a large set of common features/packages. This is what I an thinking of when I say "compatibility Core" for the OpenSolaris Operating Environment. Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), and I want to pick a distro, Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? /Will/ it just work? Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? and most importantly, How would I tell? This implies that the branding needs to communicate something about compatibility, and it should also be sensitive to the distinction between Operating System and Operating Environment. I'm going to sleep on it and see what the morning brings before I go edit the wiki... -John From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Tue Oct 30 23:15:02 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:15:02 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <47281D66.9040705@sun.com> John Plocher wrote: > From a compatibility perspective, it is probably OK to ignore the > embedded device and appliance distros - there really isn't any > expectation that a user could take an arbitrary precompiled binary > package and install it on them. Massively agree on this front. These sorts of projects are going to shrink fit as much as they possibly can - If they don't need certain functionality, of course they're going to remove it if at all possible. While many appliances would probably share a very similar set of packages, I think the embedded space is a lot meaner IMO. Glynn From Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM Wed Oct 31 07:15:06 2007 From: Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM (Eric Boutilier) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:15:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] OpenSolaris Branding Guidelines - an alternate proposal In-Reply-To: <9901A714-E391-431C-B796-E2A8F2718090@Sun.COM> References: <4718F596.7010401@Sun.Com> <471919DE.1030500@sun.com> <471929E1.7060608@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10710192051h4830a145i694bbec346e34a0c@mail.gmail.com> <319ee2b10710192305q634b1733o151e4abd96237aba@mail.gmail.com> <82C109F9-BD4A-4A58-9DAC-9FC100F21110@sun.com> <471A2646.4030205@opensolaris.org> <471FCAB2.2010406@gmx.com> <4720D49C.6070107@Sun.Com> <4721dfd0.r01W0VtqNuOFI8Em%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <47220D39.7070507@Sun.Com> <47271f1c.rFsuPn6gAXHKuz4k%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9901A714-E391-431C-B796-E2A8F2718090@Sun.COM> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Simon Phipps wrote: > [Trimming cc list] > > On Oct 30, 2007, at 12:48, Eric Boutilier wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> John Plocher wrote: >>> >>>> There are only two scenarios that I can imagine would lead there: >>>> >>>> 1) Someone makes a distro that is exactly and only comprised >>>> of the "core". >>> >>> We need to define what the core is. >>> >>> This is extremeluy important if you like to include distributions >>> in the embedded area. >>> >> >> In the software world, volume wins. So I'd say yes, definitely, >> we should emphasize the embedded area as well as the developer >> desktop area. > > But in that world, each instance is a matter for custom engineering > where a compatibility promise is of far less relevance. I don't see how that point conflicts with mine -- which is that both groups (desktop and non desktop instance developers) are equally important -- especially when considering the importance of ubiquity. Also see: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/trademark-policy-dev/2007-October/000134.html > > The "Core" concept is chiefly ... > OK, then the problem is I thought that what it cheifly is was up for discussion. > an aid to the mutual compatibility of general- > purpose distributions. > > > Restricting its scope to ensure the core > function can be embedded is not obviously necessary. > From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 31 08:46:39 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:46:39 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> John Plocher wrote: > Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ > things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. > They simply have different audiences: > > The OpenSolaris Operating System: > At the minimalist end, we have a "miniroot" consisting ... > Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta > as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary > program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), > and I want to pick a distro, > Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? > /Will/ it just work? > Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? > and most importantly, > How would I tell? More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the right to call a distro "OpenSolaris" and that Sun shoul/would not do this. I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: "Sun OpenSolaris ...." I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From swalker at opensolaris.org Wed Oct 31 08:49:06 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:49:06 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher wrote: > > > Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ > > things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. > > They simply have different audiences: > > > > The OpenSolaris Operating System: > > At the minimalist end, we have a "miniroot" consisting > > ... > > > Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta > > as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary > > program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), > > and I want to pick a distro, > > Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? > > /Will/ it just work? > > Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? > > and most importantly, > > How would I tell? > > More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the > right to call a distro "OpenSolaris" and that Sun shoul/would not do this. > > I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: > "Sun OpenSolaris ...." > > I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause > harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly *how* other distributions would be harmed. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM Wed Oct 31 09:03:16 2007 From: Jim.Grisanzio at Sun.COM (Jim Grisanzio) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:03:16 +0900 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4728A744.8060505@sun.com> Joerg Schilling wrote: > I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: > "Sun OpenSolaris ...." Why would "Sun OpenSolaris" make sense? Actually, that expression has been used (incorrectly) in the media, and it's only added to the confusion. Also, isn't it a benefit for the distros to share in the use of the brand? Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 31 09:08:01 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:08:01 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the > > right to call a distro "OpenSolaris" and that Sun shoul/would not do this. > > > > I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: > > "Sun OpenSolaris ...." > > > > I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause > > harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. > > I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly > *how* other distributions would be harmed. How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people believe that this is the one and only. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From isaac at sun.com Wed Oct 31 09:13:59 2007 From: isaac at sun.com (Isaac R.) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4728A9C7.7060004@sun.com> Hello, I think the question of "getting access to" OpenSolaris could be addressed by allowing (anyone interested in doing so) to make that decision by looking at a matrix with requirements (horizontally), and how various distro's satisfy those requirements (vertically). Assuming each of the distros were using Nevada as the kernel (which is available through the OpenSolaris project, and which they do), then all distro's deserve to be referenced as OpenSolaris-based, even if such distro's come from Sun. Similar, in some ways, to the "Intel-inside" marketing of the mid-90's. Its based on OpenSolaris (as an adjective), but it could only be THE (noun) OpenSolaris distribution if it would clearly define the delta's/features that it has compared with: 1) other distro's and 2) how it fits into and benefits the overall OpenSolaris (adjective) project. Perhaps overly simplified, but I often feel we need to keep things simple. My $0.02. Regards, Isaac Shawn Walker wrote: > On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> John Plocher wrote: >> >> >>> Maybe we don't have to reconcile them, because they are /different/ >>> things. Which of the following are OpenSolaris? Duh, they all are. >>> They simply have different audiences: >>> >>> The OpenSolaris Operating System: >>> At the minimalist end, we have a "miniroot" consisting >>> >> ... >> >> >>> Today we have SX, SXDE, Schillix, Belinix, MartUX and Nexenta >>> as examples of various targeted distros. If I have a binary >>> program (say, oracle or my company's accounting package...), >>> and I want to pick a distro, >>> Should I /expect/ my application to just work on it? >>> /Will/ it just work? >>> Does the distro owner have any expectations in this regard? >>> and most importantly, >>> How would I tell? >>> >> More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the >> right to call a distro "OpenSolaris" and that Sun shoul/would not do this. >> >> I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: >> "Sun OpenSolaris ...." >> >> I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause >> harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. >> > > I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly > *how* other distributions would be harmed. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swalker at opensolaris.org Wed Oct 31 09:12:01 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:12:01 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the > > > right to call a distro "OpenSolaris" and that Sun shoul/would not do this. > > > > > > I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: > > > "Sun OpenSolaris ...." > > > > > > I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause > > > harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. > > > > I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly > > *how* other distributions would be harmed. > > How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? That's my point. If you want to be able to prove *why* we shouldn't have a distribution called OpenSolaris you must demonstrate the harm it would cause as the benefit has already been demonstrated and talked about. Not to be offensive, but other than hurt feelings, I don't see the harm in it. > It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people believe > that this is the one and only. I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know that other "flavours" of Ubuntu exist. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Wed Oct 31 09:35:13 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:35:13 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4728AEC1.1010705@Sun.Com> >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >> I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause >> harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. > Shawn Walker wrote: > I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly > *how* other distributions would be harmed. I *think* Joerg is referring to the classic channel partner -vs- direct sales problem - if the OpenSolaris Community has its own distro, where is there room for other distros to compete? The answer, of course, isn't simple. The status quo changes, and we all have to change or be left behind. As an awesome first non-Sun distro, Schillix broke ground that made it possible for there to /be/ non-Sun distros. But, that was 2 years ago, and finally the community is getting itself up to speed. Rather than being a private effort run outside of the OpenSolaris Community, Indiana is producing a distro within the community itself. (It is interesting to note that of these 6 initial distros, only the SX and Belinix teams seem to have put in the effort to transform their outsider distros into something done within the community) In the end, though, this is a loosely structured community, driven by those who "do" rather than those who "talk". See a need, fill a need. Sometimes there are competing efforts and one succeeds while the other doesn't. Othertimes, both succeed wildly. It is all about choices. If Joerg or any of the other initial-distro leads had so desired, they *could have* created an OpenSolaris Community/Project to host and develop their distros; chances are that if they had, their efforts would now be the ones we would want to call OpenSolaris. Ironic, no? -John From chris.mahan at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 09:38:09 2007 From: chris.mahan at gmail.com (Chris Mahan) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:38:09 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4d9b53db0710310938h77d08450xc0c256ed4d5de03e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/31/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > That's my point. If you want to be able to prove *why* we shouldn't > have a distribution called OpenSolaris you must demonstrate the harm > it would cause as the benefit has already been demonstrated and talked > about. > > Not to be offensive, but other than hurt feelings, I don't see the harm in > it. > I agree with Joerg (for once--just kidding!) in that an official "OpenSolaris" distribution will harm other OpenSolaris-based projects. Here's why. As Ian Murdock eloquently states in the third paragraph in this very thread: "... - one answer to that question is clear to me: OpenSolaris MUST be something new users can download and install." This, of course, is meant to drive incoming eyeballs (new users) to the obvious choice, the Official OpenSolaris distro. So the eyeball will, instead of being puzzled by the myriad arrays of available distro, and instead of reading the descriptions and reading about Nexenta's debian-like packaging and ShilliX's Unix on USB, they will sheepfully click on the big green Download OpenSolaris button. * And they will not go to the other distros. And since distros need people, new people, to thrive, the Official OpenSolaris distro will be disproportionately advantaged in the draw of new users compared to other distros, who will wither away. People's decisions will not be based on the technical merit of each distro, after careful examination of the characteristics of each distro and based on their need. Rather, they will become Victims of Marketing and be funneled into OpenSolaris-that-was-Indiana. So, does it harm other distros? In the sense that they will be starved for new users, definitely. * (I'm going to argue that people who run Sparc will find MartUX all by themselves. That's assuming that distro can still exist sans Martin Bochnig.) -- Chris Mahan http://www.christophermahan.com/ chris_mahan at yahoo.com chris.mahan at gmail.com cell 818.943.1850 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dougs at truemail.co.th Wed Oct 31 09:39:19 2007 From: dougs at truemail.co.th (Doug Scott) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:39:19 +0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4728AFB7.8050300@truemail.co.th> Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > >>> More than 2 years ago, we did agreee that noone except Sun has the >>> right to call a distro "OpenSolaris" and that Sun shoul/would not do this. >>> >>> I have no problem if Sun would start to publish something called: >>> "Sun OpenSolaris ...." >>> >>> I have problems if this was not labelled with "Sun" as this would cause >>> harm to other existing OpenSolaris based distributions. >>> >> I have yet to see any qualifying statements that indicate exactly >> *how* other distributions would be harmed. >> > > How about trying to prove that there is no such harm? > > It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people believe > that this is the one and only. > J?rg, So far Indiana is the only (in progress) distribution which has been proposed as a project on opensolaris.org. To me this is the core factor. All the other distributions are not under the mandate of the opensolaris.org and their future can not be voted on by the core contributors of the relevant communities. i.e. There is no other show in town unless you propose SchilliX as a project and have time to back it up :) Doug From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Wed Oct 31 09:42:29 2007 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:42:29 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728A9C7.7060004@sun.com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728A9C7.7060004@sun.com> Message-ID: <4728B075.1090601@Sun.Com> Isaac R. wrote: > I think the question of "getting access to" OpenSolaris could be > addressed by allowing (anyone interested in doing so) to > make that decision by looking at a matrix with requirements > (horizontally), and how various distro's satisfy those requirements > (vertically). I tend to agree, but the devil is in the details... Could you take a stab at producing this matrix - or at least the column labels for the features/requirements that you might expect to see? A concrete example would be extremely useful about now :-) > Assuming each of the distros were using Nevada as the kernel (which is > available through the OpenSolaris project, and which they do), then all > distro's deserve to be referenced as OpenSolaris-based, even if such Sounds like your definition of "compatibility" is closely related to "has the same kernel"... I'm looking forward to seeing what your important requirements might be. -John From swalker at opensolaris.org Wed Oct 31 09:44:51 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:44:51 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4d9b53db0710310938h77d08450xc0c256ed4d5de03e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4d9b53db0710310938h77d08450xc0c256ed4d5de03e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 31/10/2007, Chris Mahan wrote: > On 10/31/07, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > That's my point. If you want to be able to prove *why* we shouldn't > > have a distribution called OpenSolaris you must demonstrate the harm > > it would cause as the benefit has already been demonstrated and talked > > about. > > > > Not to be offensive, but other than hurt feelings, I don't see the harm in > it. > > > > I agree with Joerg (for once--just kidding!) in that an official > "OpenSolaris" distribution will harm other OpenSolaris-based projects. > Here's why. > > As Ian Murdock eloquently states in the third paragraph in this very thread: > "... - one answer to that question is clear to > me: OpenSolaris MUST be something new users can download and install." > > This, of course, is meant to drive incoming eyeballs (new users) to the > obvious choice, the Official OpenSolaris distro. So the eyeball will, > instead of being puzzled by the myriad arrays of available distro, and > instead of reading the descriptions and reading about Nexenta's debian-like > packaging and ShilliX's Unix on USB, they will sheepfully click on the big > green Download OpenSolaris button. * > > And they will not go to the other distros. > > And since distros need people, new people, to thrive, the Official > OpenSolaris distro will be disproportionately advantaged in the draw of new > users compared to other distros, who will wither away. > > People's decisions will not be based on the technical merit of each distro, > after careful examination of the characteristics of each distro and based on > their need. Rather, they will become Victims of Marketing and be funneled > into OpenSolaris-that-was-Indiana. > > So, does it harm other distros? In the sense that they will be starved for > new users, definitely. By the same logic, Ubuntu never should have succeeded since there was nothing to drive people from the Debian or any other website to it. RedHat shouldn't have been able to rise to dominance and Slackware fall, and so forth. If one of the alternative distributions provides a truly better experience, users will naturally flock to it: "birds of a feather." The ability to use the OpenSolaris name is a privilege; not a right. Yes the distribution with the name gets the most visibility, but if another one provides a better experience, people will choose it despite it's goofy name (e.g. see Ubuntu). The other thing here that is going unmentioned is that the distribution is not set in stone. There is absolutely nothing preventing another project being started on OpenSolaris.org called "Project Wonkers" and having it become the new official distribution. The community here has the power and ability to directly drive the contents of this distribution and instead I just see a bunch of bickering about how unfair everything is. Stop complaining and do something about it! I've been watching OpenSolaris since it first launched and I've seen more progress and interest in OpenSolaris since Project Indiana was announced than ever. I don't see hordes of people flocking to Nexenta despite the fact that it provided a better experience in many ways over a year ago. This isn't about anyone's pet project getting "top billing"; this is about growing up and meeting the needs of our users instead of bickering about who's feelings are going to be hurt. Stop focusing on yourselves; focus on the users. We need to do what's best for the community, not our egos. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM Wed Oct 31 09:54:50 2007 From: Glynn.Foster at Sun.COM (Glynn Foster) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 05:54:50 +1300 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4d9b53db0710310938h77d08450xc0c256ed4d5de03e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4728B35A.3010900@sun.com> Shawn Walker wrote: > Stop focusing on yourselves; focus on the users. We need to do what's > best for the community, not our egos. I absolutely agree with Shawn on this one. We are going to have to make some tough choices, and some people will feel left out by them and that's the reality we're going to all have to face. Glynn From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 31 09:56:31 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:56:31 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728A9C7.7060004@sun.com> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728A9C7.7060004@sun.com> Message-ID: <4728b3bf.y9cJfAk0LVyBfrGl%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Isaac R." wrote: > Hello, > > I think the question of "getting access to" OpenSolaris could be > addressed by allowing (anyone interested in doing so) to > make that decision by looking at a matrix with requirements > (horizontally), and how various distro's satisfy those requirements > (vertically). > > Assuming each of the distros were using Nevada as the kernel (which is > available through the OpenSolaris project, and which they do), then all > distro's deserve to be referenced as OpenSolaris-based, even if such > distro's come from Sun. Similar, in some ways, to the "Intel-inside" > marketing OpenSolaris Inside would be a nice idea. Together with a compatibility test, there could be tags like ACME RabbitOS - OpenSolaris Inside - OpenSolaris Binary compatibility type C. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Wed Oct 31 09:57:55 2007 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:57:55 +0100 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4728b413.vPc5vb3r2kgEnl1n%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people believe > > that this is the one and only. > > I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me > download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other > places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know > that other "flavours" of Ubuntu exist. With current OpenSolaris distros, we have much more variance in the feeling than with different ubuntu variants. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From swalker at opensolaris.org Wed Oct 31 10:06:49 2007 From: swalker at opensolaris.org (Shawn Walker) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:06:49 -0500 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [advocacy-discuss] [osol-discuss] Project Indiana and the OpenSolaris name In-Reply-To: <4728b413.vPc5vb3r2kgEnl1n%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4727F93E.6090505@sun.com> <47281A56.6020607@Sun.Com> <4728a35f.ehlSfUAlBsDt7upr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728a861.kljAFgc3FAfMZ+yV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4728b413.vPc5vb3r2kgEnl1n%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On 31/10/2007, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Shawn Walker" wrote: > > > > It is obvious that if Sun calls a distro "OpenSolaris", many people believe > > > that this is the one and only. > > > > I don't believe that for a moment. Going to ubuntu.com only lets me > > download Ubuntu easily; but there are links that go off to other > > places where you can get Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. Many people do know > > that other "flavours" of Ubuntu exist. > > With current OpenSolaris distros, we have much more variance in the feeling > than with different ubuntu variants. Which is an interesting tidbit, but doesn't disprove my point. Remember that one of the goals in using the trademark is to set user expectations. If, as you say, we have much more variance right now between OpenSolaris distributions than usage of the trademark should be restricted accordingly. Setting user expectations should be a primary goal for any distribution. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall From chris.mahan at gmail.c