Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:06:23 EST From: "John Daniels" <jmd526@hotmail.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The merger, and ... Message-ID: <20000314000623.50393.qmail@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi: I have been following this conversation as I'm sure many others are. I am new to FreeBSD but I am as interested as anyone in what the future holds for my OS of choice. As I noted in a prior posting, I believe that it is in everyone's interest to respect the FreeBSD project's integrity AND to promote FreeBSD. Thus, I am confident that "the powers that be" will see that the commercial issues get sorted out in an acceptable way. Clearly, the terms on the use of the trademark should not be overly restrictive, but at the same time, a line does have to be drawn: there must be a point defined where one should have the right to call something FreeBSD. So far, the argument has been: how little can I include and still have the right to call my distro "FreeBSD." Perhaps we can illuminate the issue somewhat if we consider it from the opposite direction? At what point should a firm have the *obligation* to attribute it's product to the FreeBSD Foundation? It would seem that this would also have to be addressed since the Trademark holder is obligated to protect it's Trademark. If I use code snippits, sections or modules, I'm probably OK -- I can (and must) atribute what I have used within the code. This is standard BSD, and end-users do not have to know that they are using a system with BSD code. But what if XYZ company uses the kernel as a whole? Should that require more noticeable recognition or attribution? What if I use everything but ports? what if I use an exact copy of the first CD? etc. If the Trademark pertains to physical CD's only, then what if a company includes _everything_ but rearranges the contents. Can (should?) they be allowed to sell this as "XYZ OS," without any outward attribution to FreeBSD? Whatever "FreeBSD" is defined as, shouldn't that be the same if we are coming from the lower bounds, as well as from the upper? I don't know the answer. Maybe there needs to be several Trademarks (kernel, distro, security, ports, etc.) I would think that such policy issues will become clearer in the next few weeks and that they may even change somewhat over time. Lastly, I am not interested in taking sides, in fact IMO it is counter productive to get too agitated over these issues at this point. However, I feel that I should point out that some of the attacks against Mr. Glass appear to be unjustified. I don't know what his prior postings have been, or the basis (if any) for suspicion about his intentions, but it does not appear to be a *bad* thing that someone wants to create value-added products and appears to be willing to work within the FreeBSD community to do so. His arguements for fairness do not seem to be entirely off-base or deserving of partisan negativity. Please do not construe my remarks as an attack on the many people who rightfully feel some loyalty toward the people and efforts of WC/BSDI. I appreciate WC/BSDI support as much as anyone and I do understand that BSDI is now the defacto standard bearer for BSD. There is a natural reaction (I feel it too) to close ranks and rally around the flag. John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 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?20000314000623.50393.qmail>