Open Stack

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Steve Gordon wrote:
> >> From: "Anne Gentle" <anne.gentle at rackspace.com>
> >> Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the
> >> OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service names
> >> at
> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Conventions#Service_and_project_names
> >> .
> >>
> >> Previously we have indicated that Ceilometer could be named OpenStack
> >> Telemetry and Heat could be named OpenStack Orchestration. That's not the
> >> case, and we need to change those names.
> >>
> >> To quote the TC meeting, ceilometer and heat are "other modules" (second
> >> sentence from 4.1 in
> >> http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/)
> >> distributed with the Core OpenStack Project.
> >>
> >> Here's what I intend to change the wiki page to:
> >>  Here's the list of project and module names and their official names and
> >> capitalization:
> >>
> >> Ceilometer module
> >> Cinder: OpenStack Block Storage
> >> Glance: OpenStack Image Service
> >> Heat module
> >> Horizon: OpenStack dashboard
> >> Keystone: OpenStack Identity Service
> >> Neutron: OpenStack Networking
> >> Nova: OpenStack Compute
> >> Swift: OpenStack Object Storage
> 
> Small correction. The TC had not indicated that Ceilometer could be
> named "OpenStack Telemetry" and Heat could be named "OpenStack
> Orchestration". We formally asked[1] the board to allow (or disallow)
> that naming (or more precisely, that use of the trademark).
> 
> [1]
> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names
> 
> We haven't got a formal and clear answer from the board on that request
> yet. I suspect they are waiting for progress on DefCore before deciding.
> 
> If you need an answer *now* (and I suspect you do), it might make sense
> to ask foundation staff/lawyers about using those OpenStack names with
> the current state of the bylaws and trademark usage rules, rather than
> the hypothetical future state under discussion.

Basically, yes - I think having the Foundation confirm that it's
appropriate to use "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs is the right thing.

There's an awful lot of confusion about the subject and, ultimately,
it's the Foundation staff who are responsible for enforcing (and giving
advise to people on) the trademark usage rules. I've cc-ed Jonathan so
he knows about this issue.

But FWIW, the TC's request is asking for Ceilometer and Heat to be
allowed use their "Telemetry" and "Orchestration" names in *all* of the
circumstances where e.g. Nova is allowed use its "Compute" name.

Reading again this clause in the bylaws:

  "The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but
   not the Core OpenStack Project may not be identified using the
   OpenStack trademark except when distributed with the Core OpenStack
   Project."

it could well be said that this case of naming conventions in the docs
for the entire OpenStack Project falls under the "distributed with" case
and it is perfectly fine to refer to "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs.
I'd really like to see the Foundation staff give their opinion on this,
though.

Thanks,
Mark.