From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Thu May 1 12:07:35 2008 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 12:07:35 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [ogb-discuss] License clarification? In-Reply-To: <319ee2b10804301437i3d70c6e2xf769baf9de271032@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10804301437i3d70c6e2xf769baf9de271032@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <481A14F7.20901@Sun.Com> S h i v wrote: > I believe clarification regarding the OBL(OpenSolaris Binary License) > by a qualified person is essential. IANAL. I Do Not Speak Officially For Sun. May contain nuts. However, I *did* talk to Sun's lawyer on this topic yesterday, and while I can't take any credit, I would not be surprised to see the wording in question change to avoid just this type of confusion :-) My understanding: Much of OpenSolaris is covered by the CDDL. Period, done, end of discussion. CDDL says you can do pretty much anything you want modulo ensuring that free stuff stays free, and, with those parts of OpenSolaris, you can continue to do those things. There are certain portions (e.g., the so-called "closed source" binaries) that are covered under a more restrictive license - like the OBL - in most cases because those are the terms that Sun itself is required to distribute them under. [And, no, I don't understand why the OBL refers back to the fact that some things are covered by the CDDL or other licenses... Seems like recursion, as coded by a lawyer :-) ] The rest of OpenSolaris (i.e., the non-CDDL and non-OBL part) is covered by a bunch of different licenses: GPL, LGPL, MPL, Artistic, Apache, BSD, ..., and you still need to follow the terms of those licenses for those things. -John From pjharper at yahoo.com Mon May 5 08:11:19 2008 From: pjharper at yahoo.com (Paul Harper) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 08:11:19 PDT Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Where are the OpenSolaris Wallpapers? Message-ID: <17921859.1210000309697.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> Have a look on www.gnome-look.org or just google generally you will find lots of cool, funny or sometimes not so cool or funny wallpapers. Particularly for successful distro's such as Ubuntu or Debian. Why is it so hard to find OpenSolaris Desktop Wallpaper backgrounds? I tried to find something like the "OpenSolaris - Love at first Boot" and I could not find any. Could we get some alternative wallpapers using both the old and new logos's somewhere on the OpenSolaris Advocacy site. I want people to see I am running something other than Linux! From johnsonnenschein at gmail.com Tue May 6 12:18:12 2008 From: johnsonnenschein at gmail.com (John Sonnenschein) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 12:18:12 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Where are the OpenSolaris Wallpapers? In-Reply-To: <17921859.1210000309697.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> References: <17921859.1210000309697.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> Message-ID: <241540330805061218m2f1f99b2hfaf5eaad8cd0f58b@mail.gmail.com> Because the old logo contained the trademark. It's my understanding that regardless if you think it looks feminine or silly or wonder why they picked the bubbles ( ;-) ) the new policy about it allows you to do things like make wallpapers out of it. IANAL, and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me. On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Paul Harper wrote: > Have a look on www.gnome-look.org or just google generally you will find lots of cool, funny or sometimes not so cool or funny wallpapers. > > Particularly for successful distro's such as Ubuntu or Debian. > > Why is it so hard to find OpenSolaris Desktop Wallpaper backgrounds? > > I tried to find something like the "OpenSolaris - Love at first Boot" and I could not find any. > > Could we get some alternative wallpapers using both the old and new logos's somewhere on the OpenSolaris Advocacy site. > > I want people to see I am running something other than Linux! > _______________________________________________ > trademark-policy-dev mailing list > trademark-policy-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/trademark-policy-dev > -- PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1 Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu From mb1x at gmx.com Tue May 6 13:14:03 2008 From: mb1x at gmx.com (Martin Bochnig) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 22:14:03 +0200 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] Where are the OpenSolaris Wallpapers? In-Reply-To: <241540330805061218m2f1f99b2hfaf5eaad8cd0f58b@mail.gmail.com> References: <17921859.1210000309697.JavaMail.Twebapp@oss-app1> <241540330805061218m2f1f99b2hfaf5eaad8cd0f58b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080506201403.122040@gmx.net> --John Sonnenschein wrote: > > Because the old logo contained the trademark. Exactly the point, where I always reiterated that OpenSolaris has (had??) hurt itself. > > It's my understanding that regardless if you think it looks feminine > or silly or wonder why they picked the bubbles ( ;-) ) HeHe, what's bad with the new logo? I for my part find it cool. > the new policy > about it allows you to do things like make wallpapers out of it. > IANAL, and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me. I cannot confirm, nor deny this. But if(yourStatement==true) for(short i=0; i<1000; System.out.println("Big relief #" + i++ + "!")) {;}; > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Paul Harper wrote: > > Have a look on www.gnome-look.org or just google generally you will find > lots of cool, funny or sometimes not so cool or funny wallpapers. > > > > Particularly for successful distro's such as Ubuntu or Debian. > > > > Why is it so hard to find OpenSolaris Desktop Wallpaper backgrounds? > > > > I tried to find something like the "OpenSolaris - Love at first Boot" > and I could not find any. > > > > Could we get some alternative wallpapers using both the old and new > logos's somewhere on the OpenSolaris Advocacy site. > > > > I want people to see I am running something other than Linux! Me too, yes. %martin From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Tue May 13 23:46:00 2008 From: shivakumar.gn at gmail.com (S h i v) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:16:00 +0530 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [ogb-discuss] License clarification? In-Reply-To: <481A14F7.20901@Sun.Com> References: <319ee2b10804301437i3d70c6e2xf769baf9de271032@mail.gmail.com> <481A14F7.20901@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <319ee2b10805132346r38dd2745s4e1bf499016a94c0@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:37 AM, John Plocher wrote: > S h i v wrote: > > > I believe clarification regarding the OBL(OpenSolaris Binary License) > > by a qualified person is essential. > > > > > There are certain portions (e.g., the so-called "closed source" > binaries) that are covered under a more restrictive license - like > the OBL - in most cases because those are the terms that Sun itself > is required to distribute them under. > > Sorry for the delayed response, To be specific, my request is to clarify the term "OpenSolaris" in the context of usage in OBL before the term is actually used in the license text. (many licenses follow the practice of clarifying the terms used upfront in the license before the usage. It might be nice to do here as well). OBL came before Indiana and hence for many of us who have been here for sometime now, the understanding is that it refers to distro based on ON, no issues there. But for those new people coming into the folds of opensolaris from now on, the term may mean that those binary bits are re-distributable only along with opensolaris(the distro - Indiana). The section of the license I am referring to is " ....Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to (a) reproduce and use internally the Software for the purposes of developing or running an **OpenSolaris distribution**." (Full text here : http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_binary_license) best regards Shiv From John.Plocher at Sun.COM Wed May 14 07:02:41 2008 From: John.Plocher at Sun.COM (John Plocher) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 07:02:41 -0700 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [ogb-discuss] License clarification? In-Reply-To: <319ee2b10805132346r38dd2745s4e1bf499016a94c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <319ee2b10804301437i3d70c6e2xf769baf9de271032@mail.gmail.com> <481A14F7.20901@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10805132346r38dd2745s4e1bf499016a94c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <482AF101.7020306@Sun.Com> [This is probably not an OGB topic any more. Please respond only to the trademark-policy-dev at os.o alias] S h i v wrote: > Sorry for the delayed response, > To be specific, my request is to clarify the term "OpenSolaris" in the > " ....Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited > license without fees to > (a) reproduce and use internally the Software for the purposes of > developing or running an **OpenSolaris distribution**." > (Full text here : > http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_binary_license) IANAL. But... (Why is it that these two things get stuck together so often :-) As in all things related to this topic, if it matters to you, please seek legal advice from someone who is qualified to give it to you, and don't rely on anything that I might say. What follows is my opinion, which being free, is worth less than what you paid for it :-) I believe the OBL text above simply means that you can use the closed bins (or whatever is covered by the OBL) to make an OpenSolaris distribution. That is, I think it is simply trying to say you can't chop those bits out of the opensolaris wad abd use them to make a Linux or *BSD distribution, nor can you use them to make applications, middleware, ... I also don't believe the OBL and the Trademark/Branding uses of the word "opensolaris" are in complete alignment, but my unbelief here is more out of ignorance than understanding... -John From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Wed May 14 07:32:31 2008 From: shivakumar.gn at gmail.com (S h i v) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 20:02:31 +0530 Subject: [trademark-policy-dev] [ogb-discuss] License clarification? In-Reply-To: <482AF101.7020306@Sun.Com> References: <319ee2b10804301437i3d70c6e2xf769baf9de271032@mail.gmail.com> <481A14F7.20901@Sun.Com> <319ee2b10805132346r38dd2745s4e1bf499016a94c0@mail.gmail.com> <482AF101.7020306@Sun.Com> Message-ID: <319ee2b10805140732s78794576oa934dc81b8763d0e@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:32 PM, John Plocher wrote: > > IANAL. But... > > (Why is it that these two things get stuck together so often :-) > > As in all things related to this topic, if it matters to you, please > seek legal advice from someone who is qualified to give it to you, > Please look at the very first post in this thread by Shawn. The point being made is that the license isn't clear enough. There is FUD out there that is counter productive to opensolaris community. Is it worth addressing? And for the "if it matters to you....". For the purpose of my activities outside the opensolaris community, it doesn't matter in anyway. I am dropping the thread here. -Shiv