On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:22:46AM -0400, Terry Fielder wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 28/07/05, wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>wrote:
What do people think about either using something like openspf.info
instead of openspf.org and hope that openspf.org never falls into the
wrong hands?
What do people think about skipping the openspf domain names and going
with the second place finisher, spf-classic.org?
I think that 'spf-classic.org' is a much better name for the
SPF-Classic specification, as opposed to openspf.org/info/com/net.
De facto, 'Open-' is reserved for the OpenBSD projects. :-) Seriously,
they have OpenBSD, OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD and OpenCVS is about to
come.
The very fact that you would have to state "open-" is associated with
BSD projects shows that not too many people know it. Indeed people
probably know linux better then openbsd.
OpenVMS was around long before OpenBSD, even. =)
Then there's OpenOffice.org, which might run on a few OpenBSD ports, but
is in no-way related to that project.
Let's leave it up to them to do the 'Open'-branded things, they have
most likely been the first ones to do it. ;-)
It's a free world, especially in "open" society.
Or should we let Microsoft be the only provider of desktop OS's, since
they were the first?
Now that's just ridiculous.
Why create more confusion if you could avoid one? Don't you think
that the fact that you cannot get hold of openspf.org might be a sign
from God that you should not use the openspf name? ;-)
I think you hold openbsd in too high regard, and possibly other things
too.
Just because Theo and crew attach Open- to all their projects does not
mean they own that mark.
--
Michael Parson
mparson(_at_)bl(_dot_)org