Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:23:34 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>, 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: <4.2.2.20000313131120.041d91f0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <v04220807b4f2e4798445@[195.238.24.123]> References: <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:35 AM 3/13/2000 , Brad Knowles wrote: > The FreeBSD Core Team and the FreeBSD Foundation will make determinations as to what may/may not be done with the FreeBSD name in relation to products, etc.... Presumably they have done so in the past with relation to the "FreeBSD Power Pak", and therefore, by definition, there is no conflict. Was the Core Team consulted about this? No, not at all. Remember, Walnut Creek owned the trademark. It didn't need to. Let's suppose, just for example, that Walnut Creek had no previous association with FreeBSD and wanted to put out the "FreeBSD Power Pak" today. Would it want to reveal its product plans in advance, and/or have the FreeBSD Core Team design its product for it? Would it be willing to have its hands tied if it was considering making improvements or changes? Would it be willing to preannounce its product to competitors, and/or wait some indeterminate amount of time for approval according to unwritten criteria? I'd wager not. It would probably just go and publish a Linux distribution instead. > As I recall, Jordan K. Hubbard (speaking with his "FreeBSD Core Team member" hat on) has said that it can't be called FreeBSD unless it includes *everything* that is considered to be within the FreeBSD project (i.e., everything you get on the CD-ROM images he creates). This is not reasonable. After all, many consumers would like an x86-specific disc which doesn't contain the Alpha stuff, especially if this reduced the cost of the product or allowed more features to be added. Also, what about the possibility of putting just the install discs on CD-ROM, rather than having users mess with floppies? > He didn't say you couldn't add stuff, which is where someone can create a package that includes all four of the standard CD-ROMs and then adds more content -- which is precisely what Walnut Creek has done with the "FreeBSD Power Pak". The four CD-ROMs shipped by Walnut Creek contain far more than the FreeBSD Project's output. Even the first disc contains some programs which are not generated by the FreeBSD Project (e.g. FIPS). Also, a product produced by Walnut Creek should not set the "standard" for another company; otherwise, competitors will have their product design dictated by Walnut Creek. --Brett 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?4.2.2.20000313131120.041d91f0>