Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:18:05 -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: <4.2.2.20000313140446.041df3d0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <v04220810b4f30063ef1e@[195.238.24.123]> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:38 PM 3/13/2000 , Brad Knowles wrote: > Consider that the bulk of the FreeBSD Core Team probably works for Walnut Creek, and there is likely to be no conflict here. 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. > Of course, Walnut Creek/BSD, Inc. is doing the Right Thing by transferring the Trademark to the FreeBSD Foundation (and it use will be governed by the FreeBSD Core Team until then), but this fact does not create a problem in the past when there was none at the time. 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. Restricting use of the trademark so that no one but Walnut Creek can produce something called "FreeBSD" will hinder that and will hurt FreeBSD's reputation by making anything else look like a fork. >> 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? > > It would presumably reveal its plans to the FreeBSD Core Team/FreeBSD Foundation, just like everyone else. 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. > By giving them enough detail to convince them that the FreeBSD trademark will be properly recognized and utilized in the resulting product, presumably the FreeBSD Core Team/FreeBSD Foundation would give their approval to the use of the trademark. In what timeframe? What if the product were expanded or enhanced? What if features needed to be cut to make a ship date? Again, prior restraint and/or a requirement to wait for approval is inappropriate. The criteria must be published IN ADVANCE and must apply to all. > 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. 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.) > If you can't live with this restriction, then go create your own version of BSD and quit wasting our time. 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." >More stuff is okay. They just can't include anything less than the four standard ISO images that Jordan produces. You're asking even more than Jordan asks, when in fact (as mentioned above) less is necessary. >> 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. > > Until now, since Walnut Creek has owned the FreeBSD trademark, they could do pretty much whatever they wanted with it, and there's no amount of bitching and whining you can do that will help. Not relevant. Walnut Creek's products should not dictate the design of other people's products. Period. > Going forward, the FreeBSD Core Team/FreeBSD Foundation will have control over what happens with the FreeBSD trademark, and they can determine the minimum acceptable standards to which all players will have to adhere -- and Walnut Creek/BSD, Inc. will have to play by those same rules, just like everyone else. As I mentioned in an earlier message, these standards should be published, open, and fair, and should not require prior approval of spcific products. They should also take into account new and novel forms of packaging and distribution. Requiring every product to contain 4 CD-ROMs which are identical to an existing product is NOT a way to encourage innovation. --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?4.2.2.20000313140446.041df3d0>