On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, John Summerfield wrote: > I'm the last person who should be negotiating on CentOS's behalf, _this_ has > to be done by an acknowledged leader, whether it's Johnny, Karanbir or > someone else. Someone with a sound knowledge of the issues, someone Sun will > see as someone representing the project. ... If it should be done ** at all ** within CentOS. 'has to be done' inplies obligation to do it; there is no such obligation absent sufficient support. How shall those who do it insure against the liability that Sun document purports to impose? How shall that insurance be paid for? If a given person wants to take that risk, uninsured, that is their perogative. Shall the individuals who make up the CentOS project core put their personal assets at risk, for free and without compensation, to meet someone's 'expectation' for which they have not paid? I think not. And it is just not the case that the CentOS 'has to', nor indeed _can_ be all things to all people. The mice can vote to 'bell the cat' all they wish, but that does not do it until some mouse does it. This week, in another part of FOSS, Fedora finds itself in a trap, fueled in part by 'what if' extreme remarks by some who post here, to be 'more friendly' to users who will not learn the Unix ways of PATH. If Fedora proceeds that way, it is at risk of being not Unix0like any more. It would lose parts of the aspects which make Fedora a proving ground for Enterprise distributions. Gentoo, and Ubuntu can do that just fine already. If it goes that way, Fedora commits suicide. Part of an Enterprise approach is growing up, putting aside childish ways, and being 'businesslike'. I like CentOS as a boring and reliable environment in which to live professionally. I will continue to argue strongly against risking its continued existence. -- Russ herrold