Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:51:02 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers? Message-ID: <38CE51D6.CC129D96@originative.co.uk> References: <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> <v04220810b4f30063ef1e@[195.238.24.123]> <20000313235517.A33142@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I trimmed the CC list, we should all start doing that. Nik Clayton wrote: > > Brad, > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:38:58PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > Speaking as the FreeBSD Release Engineer, and as a member of the > > FreeBSD Core Team, I suspect that Jordan's statement is pretty much > > final. Anybody who wants to ship something with the FreeBSD > > trademark associated with it will need to include at the very least > > the same four standard ISO images that he produces and makes > > available for anyone who wants to download them and burn them with a > > writer. > > A small point. To the best of my knowledge, 3 of the 4 ISO images > are not made available. It's also worth pointing out that, unless I've missed a change to the contrary, the ISO images are copyrighted by WC and so you cannot take them and do your own distribution with them. > The first one is. Discs 2 thru 4 are not -- they are part of the Walnut > Creek value add. If you want 'em, you've got to pay for 'em. > > And to the wider point -- FreeBSD isn't an ISO image. I actually > wouldn't mind seeing a hard and fast definition of what FreeBSD is. That's basically what all this comes down to and I think core should get involved with the project members and come to some agreement on this matter so that everyone knows where they stand. > Is it the contents of /usr/src/ (and the associated CVS repository?). > > If so, that means that the ports tree and the docs are "third party > addons". Which doesn't sound quite right -- then again, the ports tree > is certainly not a core part of the OS, and neither (with my Doc. Proj. > Manager hat on) is /usr/doc. > > Certainly, if someone were to do > > # cd /usr/src/release && make NODOC=YES NOPORTS=YES release > > and try and sell the resulting CDs, I think they'd have every right to > call the result FreeBSD. > > I also think that if someone were to do the above, and (f'rinstance) > offered a different installer (by way of 2 different kern and mfsroot > floppy images) they'd also be completely within their rights to call the > result FreeBSD. > > If someone were to sell a binary only version, where the binaries had > been compiled with Tendra instead of gcc, that's also FreeBSD. I agree with all those definations, to be honest it would be totally ludicrous to call them anything but FreeBSD. Do we really want a situation where a distributor has to call his product FooOS because they decided to leave out the docs to save space? Personally, I think all the above should be allowed as long as they are clearly marked e.g. I see nothing wrong with a "FreeBSD Tendra 1.0" release. FreeBSD should be used to refer to the project and distributions should be named distinctly but be allowed to use FreeBSD as part of their name. > Before you can start talking about whether can call something FreeBSD, > you need to have a good grasp of what FreeBSD is in the first place. Absolutely. Paul. 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?38CE51D6.CC129D96>