Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Permalink for comment 248951
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tsedlmeyer
Member since:
2005-07-07

According to his own words webmink thinks I/O chip manufacturers have a "moral duty" to provide complete documentation.

"Unlike those companies which sell I/O chips for a living, and thus have a moral duty to provide complete, externally presentable documentation for their chips,"

If it is a case of LSI blocking release of the documentation, then I would encourage Sun in the future to consider non availability of "complete, externally presentable documentation" as a dis qualifier when choosing either 3rd party components or licensing technology for Sun produced components.

Reply Parent Score: 3