On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:34:36 -0500, Jan Schaumann
<jschauma@netmeister.org> wrote:
> Sean Davis <erplefoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > And speaking of how the open source world sees it... has anyone
> > stopped to consider the image NetBSD is making for itself by acting
> > more concerned about an orange flag logo than  the fact that several
> > key servers that actually get NetBSD out to the users have died
> > recently, some of them repeatedly, and don't seem to be getting fixed
> > in anything approaching a timely manner?
> 
> As pointed out previously, this has *absolutely nothing* *whatsoever* to
> do with the discussion at hand.  I find it rather offensive that you
> would claim that the NetBSD project is not concerned about hardware
> failure on its servers.  You have -- as far as I can tell -- absolutely
> zero knowledge about what is done about these failures, and therefor
> should not make speculative statements as to how TNF prioritizes tasks.

You know, you're right. I do have zero knowledge about what is done
about these failures. I do, however, have the ability to notice when
problems with anoncvs are announced. I have the ability to notice, for
example, that you can't manage to run a reliable anoncvs server, that
the releng ftp server is just plain dead, and so, apparently, is the
autobuild machine. So with my zero information, lets add some context:
these problems have existed for months.

Surely I don't need the full minutes of your board meetings to figure
out that deploying and maintaining working servers can't be THAT high
on TNF's priority list, if it's been this long and they're still
broken.

> > I am, obviously, not a lawyer, but I fail to see how a trademark that
> > applies to *ONLY* the word NetBSD magically requires NetBSD to
> > ruthlessly litigate against any supposed commercial use of it's
> > non-trademarked logo.
> 
> ``ruthlessly'' ?  If you could kindly point out when and where, exactly,
> TNF has acted ruthlessly, that might help you gain an ounce of ground to
> stand on.  In fact, I'd challenge you to find any occurence in this case
> where TNF has not acted politely and entirely professional.

You might have noticed that I was responding to an e-mail. The claim
re: ruthlessness was WRT the attitude that Mr. Lucas was conveying
when saying that NetBSD should, nay, MUST, litigate every trademark
violation. Also, to answer your challenge: are you not a member of the
NetBSD foundation? You don't seem to be acting politely or
professionally, sorry.

> > The bickering over whether Alex could be taken to court for allegedly
> > illegally using the NetBSD logo reeks of the same attitude displayed
> > by SCO regarding source files in Linux, but with one major difference:
> 
> This sentence seems to imply that somebody on behalf of TNF has
> expressed interest in taking Alex to court.  For the record I would like
> to state that -- as far as I can tell from the public messages in this
> thread -- this has in fact not been the case.

No, actually, it doesn't. It was also in response to that silly
made-up courtroom scene in Michael's e-mail.

> Alex was approached by TNF regarding cooperation that he, for his own
> reasons and without dialog with the project, chose not to endeavor in at
> that time.

Did I dispute that? Nope. Not once. I was aware of Alex's decision not
to bother with it before TNF was, sorry.

> Let's try not to misrepresent the facts.

Yes. Let's try not to.

-- 
Sean