Open Stack

I am infinitely reminded of Open Group's standardized UNIX certification.
Also how much of a failure it was. =/


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 11:30 -0500, Mark Collier wrote:
> > > On Jun 29, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 13:57 -0500, Mark Collier wrote:
> > >> Great summary Jonathan.
> > >>
> > >> TL;DR if you read to the end I mention Ceph!
> > >>
> > >> Here are the key points which relate to the debate at hand.
> > >>
> > >> 1)  The TM policy itself simply requires companies to get a license
> > >> for commercial use, but does not dictate what the contents of those
> > >> licenses should be. The requirements inside of those license
> > >> agreements can be updated as needed by the Foundation.
> > >>
> > >> 2)  The current product requirements in those agreements are
> > >> essentially “include entirety of Nova & Swift from a recent release
> > >> and pass some FITs tests approved by the TC when available."  This is
> > >> outdated and insufficient given how fast the project has expanded, but
> > >> it is the status quo. Any improvement on this status quo is progress
> > >> in my book, fwiw.
> > >
> > > Yep, agree.
> > >
> > >> 3)  The real question is:  what should those technical requirements be
> > >> to call your product “OpenStack” (i.e. to get a license)?
> > >
> > > We should be careful of our language around this - nobody gets to call
> > > their product "OpenStack". This is about the technical requirements for
> > > products to use the "OpenStack Powered" logo, call their product "Acme
> > > Cloud Software Powered by OpenStack" or similar, or (I assume this bit
> -
> > > see my question to Jonathan) call their product "Acme OpenStack”.
> >
> >
> > Great point, no product can be called simply “OpenStack”.  OpenStack
> > (that which we produce every 6 months as a community) is, in fact,
> > “OpenStack”. :)  What is possible, with a signed license, is to use
> > the word “OpenStack” as _part of_ your product name, when meeting all
> > of the requirements, in a particular manner.
> >
> > To directly address the word mark usage examples in product names,
> > Jonathan did give one example (ACME Cloud Powered by OpenStack).
> > However, in the case of Distributions, we have been granting the right
> > to use it in combination with the company’s brand such as “Piston
> > OpenStack” or “Red Hat OpenStack” or “Mirantis OpenStack”.  Each of
> > those examples are of products from companies who’ve signed a TM
> > license with the foundation.
>
> I liked Jonathan's further clarifications at yesterday's TC meetings:
>
>
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-07-01-20.02.log.html#l-193
>
>   20:25:56 <jbryce> the license agreement in question is called
>     OpenStack Powered and is intended for use with products and services
>     that are built using OpenStack software. for instance a public cloud
>     “FooTron Compute Powered By OpenStack”, an appliance “FooTron
>     Appliance Powered by OpenStack, a distribution “FooTron OpenStack”
>   20:26:38 <jbryce> all of those difference products would be held to
>     the same standard. in other words, they would all be required to
>     expose the same capabilities (testable over the APIs) and include
>     the same actual community-developed software bits (designated
>     sections)
>
> That's super clear. Currently, both the use of "FooTron Cloud Powered by
> OpenStack" and "FooTron OpenStack" would have the same technical
> requirements around API compatibility and community-developed software
> bits.
>
> What might be good for the board to consider is having different
> requirements for these two types of trademark usages.
>
> How about if the trademark programs were structured like this:
>
>   FooTron OpenStack - passes API tests, includes all code from the
>     integrated release
>
>   FooTron Cloud Powered by OpenStack - passes API tests, includes a
>     subset of the integrated release called 'designated sections'
>
>   FooTron Cloud, OpenStack API Compatible - passes API tests, may not
>     include any code from the integrated release
>
> i.e. why shouldn't we have a trademark program that applies only to
> those commercial products which includes the entire integrated release?
>
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20140703/8c2c8127/attachment.html>