From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Mar 14 13:33:56 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA04299 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:33:56 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA04289 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:33:53 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA07665; Tue, 14 Mar 95 09:42:50 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9503141642.AA07665@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: BSD Consortium? To: jhs@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (Julian Howard Stacey) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 9:42:49 MST Cc: branson@dvals1.larc.nasa.gov, dufault@hda.com, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, hsu@cs.hut.fi, witr@rwwa.com In-Reply-To: <199503100030.BAA05948@vector.enet> from "Julian Howard Stacey" at Mar 10, 95 01:30:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Having a consortium may also give potential comercial software > > creators more reason to write/port software to the os's. > > And may also give other software vendors (OS vendors) reason to go for > round two with us :-( Disagree. Unless the consortium would be doing its own OS realeases (IT WOULD NOT) then it could not possibly serve as a choke-point. There is *significantly* more danger in incorporating the FreeBSD or NetBSD projects themselves, since they *do* make OS releases. > Well FreeBSD doesnt have directors, but it does have activists who > would'nt want to see more lawyers letters. I would argue that these individuals are already targets, whereas legally attacking a consortium of which members of the groups are members would get them nowhere. Consider the viability of attacking an ACM SIG to stop competing real time developement because ACM happens to have a SIG about RT. The issue is tangential at best. This was truly an issue for an incorporation of one camp or the other, but is less of an issue now that agreements have been reached regarding the 4.4 code. > I also forsee a request to create a seperate mailing list to dump > such discusions into, to keep 'em out of hackers@f.. Like this one? 8-). The problem is the same one as that of news group formation: where do you go to discuss the formation of the group rec.autos.lada? Where people who are interested in Lada's hang out -- which seems to be the comp.os.386bsd.* and comp.os.linux.* groups. I've already suggested moving this to a news group cross-posting instead; I think a seperate mailing list would simply kill it, especially if this placed it under the auspices of one group or the other. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.