Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:37:06 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers? Message-ID: <v04220816b4f30c9ed230@[195.238.24.123]> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000313140446.041df3d0@localhost> References: <4.2.2.20000313131120.041d91f0@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313111904.041e0c00@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313103859.0410fe30@localhost> <4.2.2.20000312160425.00b16e80@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003112034290.431-100000@theory8.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <4.2.2.20000312122651.00b1e880@localhost> <4.2.2.20000312144558.04190e80@localhost> <4.2.2.20000312160425.00b16e80@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313103859.0410fe30@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313111904.041e0c00@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313131120.041d91f0@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313140446.041df3d0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:18 PM -0700 2000/3/13, Brett Glass wrote: > Yes, there is a BIG conflict. Many key authors of FreeBSD, past and present, > made their contributions with the understanding that they were not working > for the benefit of one company -- Walnut Creek -- but rather for the good > of anyone who wanted to use the code. That's basically what has happened so far, and the folks at Walnut Creek/BSD, Inc. are doing things to help make sure that this continues to happen -- by transferring the trademark to the FreeBSD Foundation, etc.... You are manufacturing a problem here when, in fact, none exists. > It creates a problem going forward. For FreeBSD to achieve anywhere near the > success or penetration of Linux (or even keep up with it!), there must be > multiple distributions. Why? Prove to me that you understand this issue well enough that there have to be multiple distributions of FreeBSD, as opposed to FreeBSD being just one distribution of BSD. Until you can prove that, your argument has no basis whatsoever. Fundamentally, FreeBSD is just one version of BSD. You're welcome to create your own version of BSD if you want, but you can't call it FreeBSD. > Stop right there. Since, as you've mentioned, the majority of the Core > Team work for Walnut Creek, this would require that any company which > did this reveal its product plans to SEVERAL employees of a competitor. > This is an inappropriate requirement. Considering that the members of the FreeBSD Core Team are not all multi-trillionaires that can support themselves financially by just blinking their eyes, you have to accept the fact that they are going to have other jobs, and that some of them are going to work for companies that you might consider to be competitors. That's just the way life in this world is. If you can't live with that, then I would suggest you go somewhere else. Myself, I figure that these guys are adult enough and aware enough of the potential conflict of interest (and the problems that might result) that they can keep the two parts of their lives separate. > The criteria > must be published IN ADVANCE and must apply to all. I'm sure that they will be. However, until such time as they are published, there's no sense your continuing to bitch and moan about this non-problem. > There are several things in the above paragraph which are not correct. First, > Jordan makes only the first ISO image of the set available online. Second, he > has stated that he would only require the contents of the FIRST disc to be > included. (This is still too much, however, because it means that a >competitor > of Walnut Creek cannot ship a one-disc solution with enhancements.) Great! So the situation is even better for you, and yet you still bitch! Jesus Christ, guy -- what the hell more do you want? Are you expecting Jordan to personally go in and illegally change Bill Gate's will so as to name you the sole heir, and then to murder him so that you can get all that money?!? > I don't think that it would be in ANYONE'S interest for those who create new > distributions to be forced to say, "It's better than FreeBSD." This would > indeed be fragmentation and would hurt the Project. Instead, the FreeBSD > Project should want them to say, "It IS FreeBSD, with our unique >value added." Well, I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. > Not relevant. Walnut Creek's products should not dictate the design > of other people's products. Period. They have come first, they set the standard, and therefore everyone else's products will have to take that into consideration. That's about the extent of how they "dictate" the design of other people's products. > As I mentioned in an earlier message, these standards should be > published, open, and fair, I'm sure they will be. Now, if you'll just hold your bloody horses and quit bitching and moaning about them before they're even created, maybe the rest of us can get something useful done. > and should not require prior approval of > spcific products. So, HOW THE HELL else do you propose that they manage any kind of quality control over the product, and ensure that the FreeBSD trademark is properly protected?!? -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be> || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124 Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels http://www.skynet.be || Belgium 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?v04220816b4f30c9ed230>