Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:33:30 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> To: tlambert@primenet.com Cc: jessemonroy@email.com, jessem@livecam.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Concern over ftp.freebsd.org Message-ID: <20010504003330A.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: <200105040349.UAA20041@usr06.primenet.com> References: <20010503152741H.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <200105040349.UAA20041@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think this is the crux of things; if you had communicated > that information, that way, I think the outage itself would > have been a tempest in a teacup, and widely ignored while Perhaps, though I also can't help but notice that none of this occurred until *after* I posted something to announce. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" is a phrase which comes to mind. > [1] > The "tools" directory is one big issue. It's not self-hosted > on FreeBSD, and the copyright on the executables isn't clear, Actually, it's just a bunch of DOS stuff we've been copying around from CD to CD without any clear idea as to whether it's even useful anymore. The only piece which was software that can't be found elsewhere (as even the most cursory netsearch will reveal) is Walnut Creek CDROM's "view" program and we don't use that anymore at all. It can be deleted and the rest is just freeware from the Simtel and CICA archives. As to it not being "simple" to tell if it's redistributable, I'd have to disagree since there are READMEs which come with most of the stuff in there and, again, even a simple netsearch will show you that things like OSBS and fdwrite are freely available. Do a little legwork if the contents of tools are really that much of interest. > The build process itself requires a number of files which have > recently become unavailable; they are not all present on the This is only for the documentation build and you can easily turn it off, as the snapshot servers have done for a long time. Also, this is (again) a ports collection issue and should be taken up with the appropriate maintainers. > The build process is rather "CDROM as it is"-centric. This isn't Of course it is. It's aimed at doing one thing and one thing only. If you want something more general purpose, you know where your editor is. :) I would also argue that your recent KERNCONF submission is perhaps a micro step in the right direction but far from something which really tackles this issue. > The FreeBSD trademark is still controlled by someone other than > the FreeBSD Foundation. I _did_ listen in on the conference call, > but I didn't interrupt with a question about your justification > for not transferring this to the foundation, sinceI didn't want Well, this is certainly something we also agreed to try and address and nobody said it *wouldn't* be done, simply that it had to be done carefully. I also never said that there would be no transfer, just that it had to be transferred with a full and complete understanding of what that entailed. > This is not to be spiteful, but what would happen if the holders of > these things suddenly became adversarial to the project? We (core) already discussed that way back when the WC filing occurred. In the worst case, we simply change our name and the trademark holder is left holding an empty bag. A painful transition to be sure, but even the threat of doing that should generally be enough to avoid going to such an adversarial extreme. It's truly the project which holds the cards here, not some PTO registrant. > This concern is amplified by the recent problems with the PicoBSD > builds, using 4.3-RELEASE. Which has nothing to do with WindRiver. If the people doing PicoBSD wish to put more time into it, and I'm sure they'd welcome your own contributions, that remains entirely independent of this issue. - Jordan 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?20010504003330A.jkh>