Open Stack

On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:29 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 09:38 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> The point I have been trying to make is that because our community
>> creates code and not standards, we should not simply trademark an API
>> without including the implementation.
> 
> To make sure the basic point isn't getting lost - we're talking about
> the requirements for products and clouds that wish to use the "OpenStack
> Powered" trademark. We're not "trademarking an API”.

If the cloud or product does not include the OpenStack implementation, how is it “Powered” by OpenStack? I could see saying “Compatible with” or something like that. Maybe I’m reading too much into the word “Powered”.

> 
> We want there to be a vibrant commercial ecosystem of "OpenStack
> Powered" products and clouds. But we also want to ensure that such
> products offer an experience which reflects well on our brand and
> encourages healthy engagement with our community.
> 
> i.e. at least three things to balance - growing this commercial
> ecosystem, making sure the brand isn't damaged and growing our
> community.
> 
> If the implementation of a capability offers users a good experience and
> the vendor is engaged with our community in good faith, then I'd err on
> the side of allowing the use of the trademark since they will grow the
> commercial ecosystem.

So if they are engaged in one area (Nova) but not in another (Swift) they are allowed to replace the component entirely with their own? That feels very strange. We don’t apply that logic to *any* other component.

> 
> I don't like to see us making rigid rules like "required capabilities
> must have some designated sections", because such rules are so far
> removed from the nuanced non-technical considerations we should be
> making about trademark usage.

This is a nuanced issue, no doubt. Maybe we should be reconsidering the idea that we only want to have one trademark. A single mark doesn’t seem to support the varied ways the ecosystem wants to use OpenStack in their products while also making clear how those products differ from each other.

> 
> [Snip the rest, because it all leads from your initial assertion]
> 
> Mark.
>