[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-07-30

R P Herrold herrold at owlriver.com
Tue Aug 12 19:14:45 PDT 2008

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:

> Russ,

> I'm confused why it is you care about this particular issue 
> in that case.  CentOS has never certified to the LSB, and 
> certifying to the LSB would require the organization behind 
> CentOS to agree to a trademark agreement with the Linux 
> Foundation

oh -- I thought I was 'Mr. Herrold.'  Gloves are off then, I 
see.  Your choice.  Please know I appreciated your technical 
response back when I had an ext2 fsck issue back 'bout 0.16.

CentOS was invited by LSB representatives over two years ago 
to address the LSB certification tests, and we (I) have done 
so on an ongoing basis.  That we do not care to 'finish' the 
process with the LSB, and potentially make our upstream 
unhappy, is a conscious choice.

Over that time, I have consulted with, and challenged 
privately many at the LSB; with Mats, with Ian, with Jeff. 
I've met with Ebin, and held a conference call with him toward 
Wall St. on GPL issues as v3 was in process.

In point of fact, and reviewing the bidding, my site's:
was probably the FIRST external webpage as to the LSB.  Stuart 
was up at OLS again the year and we spoke briefly.

Who are _you_ to challenge or question why I care?  What 
relevance does the reason I care have to right or wrong 
decision-making at the LSB?

A healthy LSB process helps the breed. A sick one does not. 
How's that open LANANA mailing list and tracker coming? I saw 
HPA at OLS, and he looked pretty laid back at rPath.

Similarly, earlier I was involved with the cAos distribution, 
which was wholly 'community' and designed to protect the RPM 
based distributions in community space, at the end of RHL's 

Also at OLS a couple weeks ago, I was provoked by Mark 
Shuttlesworth's 'challenge' at the second LSB keynote, to spin 
a (community) distribution living at HEAD, and (my own add on) 
RPM based. I'll make sure it passes the LSB test criteria, 
too. The tools at RPM5.org are mature and well usable, and 
will prolly be the underpinning;  certainly JBJ and I have 
discussed it.  Dunno that I'll drink the LSB trademark 
'kool-aid' there either.  ;)

Earlier today, I 'sat on' (put in the drawer) an email which 
was a direct challenge to what I see as your 'lack of vision' 
toward software freedom, kicking off the 'religious war' 
branch of this discussion.  That piece was really direct. 
Holding it may have been a poor choice, but I am guided by 
Harry S Truman.  I'll sleep on it and possibly revise it 
further before sending it and kicking off my participation in 
'religious' matters.  If at all.

> [several commercial distributions] have signed various 
> agreements with Sun.

"So?  If all your classmates were jumping off the roof of a 
building, would you?"  [thanks, mom]  I posted the link to the 
Debian 'no special deals for Debian will suffice' link 
yesterday.  It seems you don't bother to read what I post. 
Fair enough.

>  Not conincidentally [sic], the companies behind these 
> distributions have all signed trademark agreements with the 
> Linux Foundation as a part of being LSB certified.  So 
> clearly they are comfortable with both the license 
> compliance issues involved with shipping Java VM as well

wow -- "So clearly ... as to Java"? -- stunning non-sequitur. 
Unless you have polled them, all I see are assumptions.  Alan 
may have been right that you are simply a troll.

But even assuming, arguendo, that all commercial distributions 
have signed on to Sun's NDA and indemnification terms, and 
none of the (poor) community ones have, I am perfectly willing 
to be a lone voice of sanity, speaking truth.

I care about the future of Free software.  The commercial 
vendors (distributions and ISVs) drink from the wells dug by 
the FOSS community, and will die if they foul them too much.

Wearing my 'community distribution' hat here, I do * not * 
care a rat's patoo about commercial gamesmanship.  I think 
licenses matter.  I think they mean what they say.  I have for 

Does the Linux Foundation's 'confused' "Chief Platform 
Strategist" care?  Or are you just shilling?

-- Russ herrold

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list