Open Stack

Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>> In this case, we are talking about documentation that is produced and distributed with the integrated release to cover the Core OpenStack Project and the “modules" that are distributed together with the Core OpenStack Project in the integrated release. This is the intended use case for the exception Mark quoted above from the Bylaws, and I think it is perfectly fine to refer to the integrated components in the OpenStack release documentation as OpenStack components.
> 
> What about if I talk about OpenStack at a conference (like I'm doing
> today)? What should I say: "Orchestration", "Heat module" (or just Heat")?

The way I read that clause: if you mention Heat as a part of the
integrated release (i.e. your talk is about OpenStack), then you can use
"OpenStack Orchestration". If you're talking about the project
separately (i.e. your talk is just about Heat), then you should probably
just say "Heat". It makes sense, I think: Heat is the project that fills
the role of orchestration in the OpenStack integrated release.

> What about all the OpenStack distributors and users like SUSE,
> Rackspace, HP, Red Hat etc? What should they use in their documentation
> and software?

They should probably ask their legal counsel on how they can interpret
that clause.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)