Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:16:49 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Merger, and what will its effects be on committers? Message-ID: <38CC1751.FDB96428@originative.co.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003112034290.431-100000@theory8.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <4.2.2.20000312122651.00b1e880@localhost> <38CC0DA9.F91EF779@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > > [much snipping] > > Brett Glass wrote: > > > > At 06:44 AM 3/12/2000 , Paul Richards wrote: > > > >In FreeBSD's case, WC has a hefty influence on the project for many > > >reasons, not least the fact that they employ some of the most prominent > > >project members. > > > > Very true. WC runs the machines on which the builds are done, and employs > > a large percentage of the key developers. It is far and away the largest > > distributor of FreeBSD discs, just began to run the yearly FreeBSD > > convention, publishes the only book on FreeBSD (though others will follow), > > and does other things which give it overwhelming influence. > > > >At the moment we are all encouraged to buy all FreeBSD products from WC. > > >If company X produces a better installer, why shouldn't we put some > > >money into their coffers by buying their installation in order to fund > > >the development of a better installer? > > > > I agreee 100%. This is a decision which, if handled by an impartial board > > that wanted to see FreeBSD proliferate, might go the other way. This is > > why I think that it is important for the board NOT to be the core team > > but rather to be representative of the whole community -- including > > users wand vendors other than Walnut Creek/BSDi. > > You guys are comparing apples and oranges and calling it mincemeat. > There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone at all from taking every > bit of the FreeBSD code, slapping a new installer on it, and selling it > to their heart's content, as long as they don't try to call it FreeBSD. > That's true now, and it will continue to be true after the merger. In > fact, if I understand things correctly (and I make no claim to know more > than any other man on the street about the details of the deal) that is > for all intents and purposes exactly what BSDI is going to do (although > they will probably license use of the freebsd name to go along with > their product). I think you're missing the point that was being made. Yes, the above is correct, there's nothing to stop there being umpteen different operating systems all of them competing with each other. All of them are FreeBSD but only one of them can officially claim to be so, even though the differences between them are less significant than the differences between any two Linux distributions. Would you rather some company take FreeBSD, add value to it and sell it branded as a FreeBSD distribution, or take FreeBSD add value to it and then sell it as something totally different that takes market share away from FreeBSD? If you force companies to spend money branding their own products they are far less likely to pay anything back to the FreeBSD community because FreeBSD would then be one of their competitors rather than a stable mate. This is why the trademark issue is an important one. In order to grow the FreeBSD community, and in this case I mean commercially rather than in terms of users although the latter follows on from the former, you need to provide some room for other companies to make money from the project. If you don't allow them to call their product FreeBSD then instead of growing the community you fragment it. > Now, where you run into difficulty is when you want to take the FreeBSD > code, add bits to it and CALL IT FREEBSD. Now you're running into > trademark issues. The owner of a trademark has a legal responsibility to > protect its property. If the trademark owner lets every Tom, Dick and > Harry use their trademark on other products their legal (civil) > protections for that trademark get watered down. I'm perfectly happy with that, protecting the trademark is a good thing. The issue that's potentially stifling growth is in defining what FreeBSD is and when something ceases to be FreeBSD. Those are decisions that should be made by the foundation but the foundation must ensure that the decision is made in the best interests of the project and not to protect the interests of any one of its sponsors. It's interesting to draw the analogy with Linux and UNIX. Almost everything that's derived from Linux is called Linux, which creates a large installed base of Linux systems even though they all differ in the details. Conversely, the number of UNIX systems is in decline because commercial vendors are adopting different names for their operating systems. I wonder if this isn't partly due to the fact that it is hard to get an operating system qualified as UNIX because of the strict conformance required. I think it would be a pity for FreeBSD to become another UNIX, rather than another Linux. Paul. 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?38CC1751.FDB96428>