Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:00:26 +0100
From:      Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>
To:        Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>
Cc:        Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers?
Message-ID:  <v04220812b4f30496ecf0@[195.238.24.123]>
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000313132347.041d25a0@localhost>
References:  <4.2.2.20000313110822.03d71ee0@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313103859.0410fe30@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313110822.03d71ee0@localhost> <4.2.2.20000313132347.041d25a0@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:34 PM -0700 2000/3/13, Brett Glass wrote:

>  Not true. The primary reason for the BSD license is to limit the authors'
>  exposure to liability problems. However, it allows the code to be used
>  in any way one desires.

	Code != IP, Code != Trademark

	As I said, I think you've clearly demonstrated your lack of 
understanding of this issue.

>  No, but they'll find that the Linux PR Machine will generate vast amounts
>  of negative PR that *will* hurt them. A lot.

	They can try, but if they draw attention to this, then BSD, Inc. 
can fire back with "Hey, what about all those things you call 
'distributions'?  Surely that's a fragmenting of your market!"

	I think the various companies and organizations that produce 
Linux distributions are smart enough to make sure that they avoid 
that obvious retort, because the result would cause them far more 
damage than it could to BSD, Inc.

>  The FreeBSD Foundation will, in fact, have an interest in promoting the
>  development of multiple distributions. If it does not do so, it will
>  indicate that there are conflicts of interest.

	Bullshit.  You're claiming that you're God, and that whatever you 
say is the TRUTH, because you *SAY* it's the TRUTH.  And that's just 
plain Bullshit.

	A conflict of interest doesn't necessarily exist just because 
Brett Glass says it does, nor does it exist just because Brad Knowles 
says it does.


	The FreeBSD Core Team and the FreeBSD Foundation will do whatever 
they think is in the best interests of the FreeBSD project, and 
whatever they feel they need to in order to protect the FreeBSD 
trademark.  And there is nothing you, I, or anyone else can say about 
that, except what our personal opinion is of their efforts in this 
area -- but that's nothing more than our personal opinions.

>  Not if they're a non-profit foundation. They must accomplish the purposes
>  laid out in their bylaws -- presumably, to promote the proliferation
>  of FreeBSD -- and must do so in an evenhanded manner. If they favor
>  one distributor, they WILL lose their non-profit status.

	They will have a set of standards that must be adhered to, 
regardless of who might be distributing the product.  If you choose 
to adhere to those standards, then you're welcome to come up with 
your own distribution that adds whatever additional value you may 
care to create.  But it has to meet the standards, otherwise it won't 
be allowed to exist.

	There's absolutely nothing in here that says anything about 
favouring one distributor over another, lack of even-handedness, or 
anything else.  It's simply defining a set of standards and ensuring 
that everyone plays by them.

>  Or, depending how you look at it, they'd ride on MY coattails and benefit
>  from the time, money, and effort I invested in marketing, software
>  development, etc.

	Given what I've seen from you here, I think that's highly unlikely.

	However, so long as you're willing to abide by the standards, 
then you're welcome to add whatever additional value you like in 
whatever way you like.

>  This is what has happened in the Linux world. The rising tide of multiple
>  distributions has floated all boats.

	Too many cooks in the kitchen will spoil the broth.  We're 
already starting to see this in the Linux camp, and the situation 
will only get worse for them.

>  Actually, he said the *first* CD-ROM. But this is still an onerous
>  requirement, because it requires a multiple-CD set when one might
>  otherwise not be needed. And precludes the production of products
>  with an online component that provides parts as needed.

	Sorry, guy.  That's part of the standard.  Either you agree to 
the standard and you get to play, or you don't and you don't.  It's 
that simple.

--
   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?v04220812b4f30496ecf0>