From: Richard Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mall now BSDCentral
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 10:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Could I just ask exactly what the FreeBSD Foundation _is_?
Well, I can't speak for it, naturally, since I'm in no way connected
with it. I can say that it *appears* to be an evolving organization,
however, where those who are connected with it are slowly and
cautiously feeling their way forward. What it "is" will therefore
depend a lot on when you ask. Right now, it appears to be mostly a
filed paperwork and some transitional activity (FreeBSD, Inc RIP,
hello Foundation). Once it has accumulated a purse which makes further
action even possible, I'm sure we'll hear more about it.
> I read the announcement and bylaws, and it looks like it is supposed
> to be the offical organization representing FreeBSD.
Well, now that you mention it, I'm not sure any organization can truly
"officially represent FreeBSD", just as no charity organization truly
represents the starving children in Africa ("Hey, where are you going
with that food? This is OUR turf missionary boy!").
There can simply be organizations which do various amounts of good,
with those doing the most good garnering the most public support (from
either "inside" or outside the project). For that matter, the FreeBSD
Core team isn't an "official organization" either, it's an elected
body of folks who sign no paperwork, belong to no FreeBSD-oriented
Corporation, serve on no boards and otherwise have no legal obligation
to do anything. This may all seem unforgivably loose to some, but I
think it's actually pretty good. Start bringing *real* bureaucracy
into the mix and much of the attraction to FreeBSD is a casualty.
> So, is the Foundation the heir apparent to whatever passes as the
> "official" FreeBSD organization? Or is it just a "West Squirrel
> Mountain Area FreeBSD Users Group"? (Not that there's anything
> wrong with that...)
An interesting set of choices you leave us with, but I'd definitely
have to say it seems to lean more towards the latter definition. :)
I think I'd prefer to use the Atlanta Linux Group as an example. It
was strictly an informal organization of volunteers, but it eventually
grew into something so well organized that it had its own annual
conference and all sorts of resources. It didn't take Linus Torvalds
standing up in public and saying "I like those guys, they're
official", it just took a lot of really dedicated volunteers. Their
ALS conference eventually got so big that I believe it was handed over
to the USENIX organization, but I would take that as a mark of success
if anything.
> With Walnut Creek out of the picture, will Core continue to coordinate
> official releases?
Thankfully, that's not a core function or we'd probably only do one a
year :-) There are various people in committers that have "hats" to
cover these sorts of things, from release engineering to ports
management, and it's not something that core deals with. This is also
good because "committers" is still the principle driving force behind
the project and we should push out as much stuff into that domain as
possible.
> the Foundation holds the trademark, that implies that the Foundation has
> some legal control over the distribution, at least as "FreeBSD".
True, though I think that it's always been implict that the Foundation
would be tasked more with the job of the trademark's defense against
abuse, not licensing it to vendors so that FreeBSD can be on
everything from tee-shirts to cigarettes so long as they pay the
foundation enough money. :)
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
