Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:50:03 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> Cc: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>, Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Correction of typo Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000313123947.041d46c0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003131336470.94516-100000@sasami.jurai.net> References: <4.2.2.20000313112734.041d5670@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:42 AM 3/13/2000 , Matthew N. Dodd wrote: >Wasn't the 4 CD set the install CD, the CVS tree, GNATS, ports, >precompiled packages and distfiles? > >How is that -not- a product of the FreeBSD Project? The precompiled packages are not products of the FreeBSD Project. They consist of works such as Apache, etc. which are generated completely independently and over whose development and quality the Project exercises no control. Just like a third-party installer would. > > Over time, programs with serious bugs and security holes, including > > Version 2.4 of QPopper and easily compromised versions of BIND, have > > shipped on the Walnut Creek discs. > >Sure, and I suppose you think that WC is responsible for the holes in BIND >and Sendmail that shipped with 1.1.5.1. "Damnit! They're hurting >FreeBSD!" Again, suppose they included a third party installer. Or maybe TWO third party installers, for that matter, so you could take your choice. Why would bugs in these be any more harmful to FreeBSD's reputation than bugs in any other third party product included on the discs? >I think you're just gonna have to be a reasonable human like the rest of >us if you want to profit from someone elses hard work. I think I'm being entirely reasonable when I ask that use of the mark: 1. Not be subject to prior restraint on publication; 2. Not require that companies reveal product plans to competitors or their employees prior to shipment; 3. Not delay the shipment of products pending approval from a governing body; 4. Be as immune as possible to politics and/or the interests of commercial entities; 5. Be adminstered evenhandedly and fairly according to a written and published policy; and 6. Not be administered in such a way as to give any publisher or potential publisher a unique advantage. I certainly wouldn't want MY hard work to inure to the benefit of a single for-profit company when I had intended it to be benefit everyone. >I know my >interests in FreeBSD lead me to support the current situation with respect >to the "FreeBSD" trademark/brand. The current situation is that only Walnut Creek can safely use the mark at all. Even CheapBytes is going out on a limb. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.2.20000313123947.041d46c0>