Open Stack

Mark, on first pass, I see the merit of the Program approach and detail you
have described. I'd also like to hear thoughts on Tim's question.


Best,
Simon

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Mark Collier <mark at openstack.org> wrote:

> Background:
>
> On a day to day basis, Foundation employees manage the various trademark
> license Programs (working with our trademark attorneys as needed). A
> “Program” provides a license for use of the trademarks in commercial
> contexts, executed between a company in the ecosystem and the Foundation,
> specific to a product or service. Note: There are multiple Programs (e.g.
> “OpenStack Powered”, “OpenStack Powered Storage”, “OpenStack Training”).
>
> A Program typically includes access to a particular commercial-use logo
> (e.g. “OpenStack Powered”) and some ability to use the word “OpenStack” in
> the product name and marketing collateral (this is known as the “wordmark”
> in legalese). A signed contract is required, and there are technical
> requirements to qualify which include API Capabilities inclusion of
> specific upstream code (a la Designated Sections).
>
> Now that we’re nearing the end of the initial DefCore  committee work for
> Havana, the Board felt it was a good time for the Foundation staff to look
> at how we might map the DefCore Capabilities and Designated Code to
> existing or new licensing Programs. Jonathan and I are working on a
> proposal for the October 20th Board Meeting and want as much input as
> possible prior.
>
> This mapping will give everyone another level of understanding regarding
> how the DefCore components will play out in the market under such Programs,
> and ultimately give the Board something that they’re confident voting for
> to move this to implementation phase soon.
>
> Note that while the Board DID approve the Havana Capabilities in the July
> Board meeting, they did not approve the proposed update in the September
> Board meeting, citing various concerns, including the status of Swift and a
> lack of clarity about how the requirements would play out with our
> trademark licensees. I believe that by illustrating the different Programs
> that we would expect to implement with respect to the DefCore work, along
> with some tweaks to the Designated Sections themselves, we can all get on
> the same page. We are very close.
>
> What you’ll see is in practice it’s not an either/or thing with Swift
> because we have more than one Program to address different markets and
> choices. Multiple Programs is not a new concept.
>
> For the purposes of this email I’m going to focus on the “OpenStack
> Powered” Programs, summarize the requirements and benefits today, then
> suggest a way that we could map the DefCore output to the two existing
> programs in a practical way, while adding a third program to address a
> specific use case. All without creating any more logos.
>
> I believe this proposal can address the many different stakeholders' input
> to date, the incredible work of DefCore, TC and community input, while
> keeping true to our goal of improving interoperability.
>
> Note: I strongly advise you check the Google Doc version because a table
> is a lot easier to follow:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WHVGwIxLSB0Dh9xVntxO5faM4pJjTe0yM0JwpsLUebA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> “OpenStack Powered” Programs today:
> 1) Program Name: OpenStack Powered
>          Requirements: Nova and Swift code included, Nova and Swift APIs
> exposed
>          Benefits:  Can use “OpenStack Powered” logo, can use “OpenStack”
> in product name within guidelines
> 2) Program Name: OpenStack Powered Storage
>          Requirements: Swift code included and Swift APIs exposed
>          Benefits:  Can use “OpenStack Powered” logo, can use “OpenStack
> Storage” in product name within guidelines
> •     Note: Has more restrictive rights, such a requirement to include
> “Storage” qualifier in product marketing
>
> Future Programs mapped to DefCore
> 1) Program Name: OpenStack Powered Platform
> •    Requirements: All Capabilities required by Defcore, All Designated
> Sections from Defcore, Pass Tests
>         Benefits:  Can use “OpenStack Powered” logo, can use “OpenStack”
> in product name within guidelines — has broadest rights to use the name,
> such a “ACME OpenStack” for a distro and “ACME OpenStack Cloud” for a
> public cloud service
> 2) Program Name: OpenStack Powered Storage
>         Requirements: All object storage specific Capabilities from
> Defcore, all Swift specific Designated Sections from Defcore, Pass Tests
>         Benefits:  Can use “OpenStack Powered” logo, can use “OpenStack”
> in product name within guidelines.
>         Note: Has more restrictive rights, such as requirement to include
> “Storage” qualifier in product marketing
>
> 3) Program Name: OpenStack Powered Compute
>       Requirements: All compute specific Capabilities from Defcore, all
> Nova, Glance, Cinder specific Designated Sections from Defcore, Pass Tests
>          Benefits:  Can use “OpenStack Powered” logo, can use “OpenStack”
> in product name within guidelines
>          Note: Has more restrictive rights, such as requirement to include
> “Compute” qualifier in product marketing.
>
> *For implementation, Defcore would need to group subsets of the overall
> output. For example:
> • Platform - no need to group as this is the superset. Suggest adding
> Swift Designated Sections for Havana based on input from September, and
> Keystone in Icehouse/Juno based on user input from Das Kamhout & Tim Bell)
> • Storage - subset focused on Object Storage Capabilities and Designated
> Sections
> • Compute - subset including the Nova, Glance, Cinder for Havana. Suggest
> adding others as they are included in future releases (e.g. Keystone)
>
> All of this is also captured in a Google doc that is frankly more readable
> due to the table and formatting:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WHVGwIxLSB0Dh9xVntxO5faM4pJjTe0yM0JwpsLUebA/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 6:09 AM, Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com wrote:
>
> To clarify, Mark Collier.  We have a lot of Marks working on marks.
>
> *From:* Hirschfeld, Rob
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:20 AM
> *To:* Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* [OpenStack-DefCore] progress - met w/ Foundation
>
> DefCore,
>
> Since we’re time sensitive, I wanted to let you know that I had a working
> session with the Foundation staff Friday.  Alan and Troy also participated.
>
> We laid out a some options that Mark will review on the list next week.  I
> think it was a very positive and productive discussion.  I’m optimistic
> that we have some good suggestions that will address the concerns raised by
> the Board.
>
> Also, I’d like to thank those of you who reached out 1x1 after the last
> Board meeting.
>
> Rob
> *______________________________*
> *Rob Hirschfeld*
> Sr. Distinguished Cloud Solution Architect
> *Dell* | Cloud Edge, Data Center Solutions
> *cell* +1 512 909-7219 *blog* robhirschfeld.com, *twitter* @zehicle
> Please note, I am based in the CENTRAL (-6) time zone
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20141001/fef5d3e9/attachment.html>