About 4(1)(b)(iii):
===============
After the OSP New Definition Date, the scope of the Core
OpenStack Project which is an integrated
release shall be determined as set forth in Section
4.13(c)(ii). The use of the OpenStack trademarks on the
OpentStackOpenStack
Project shall be defined in the Trademark Policy in Section 7.3.
===============
The addition of "which is an integrated release" seems redundant to me, since "Core OpenStack Project" is defined in 4(1)(b)(iii) as "the software modules which are part of an integrated release". It might not be redundant if "which is an" is different from "which are part of", but if that is the case, then I think that distinction should be elaborated/made explicit - as it currently stands it is somewhat confusing.
Luis
Hey
I figure these proposed amendments are relevant to this list too.
Thanks,
Mark.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com>
> To: Thierry Carrez <thierry@openstack.org>
> Cc: Eileen Evans Esq. (eileen.evans@hp.com) <eileen.evans@hp.com>,
> defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org
> <defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org>, Roay, Leslie
> <Leslie.Roay@dlapiper.com>
> Subject: [OpenStack-DefCore] Revised Bylaws
> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:03:01 +0000
>
> I am enclosing the current version of the Bylaws marked to show
> differences to the existing version (v15 to v.18) and marked to show
> the changes to the initial revised draft (v.17 to v.18). This second
> set of changes reflects comments raised at the last meeting of the
> committee, particularly by Mark McLoughlin on behalf of the Technical
> Committee. Version 18 has not yet been approved by the committee.
> These changes are meant to reflect the need to move from a “module”
> based method of determining when the trademark can be used to a more
> flexible method which can be agreed upon by the Technical Committee
> and the Board. As I said to Mark and I think that he passed on to the
> Technical Committee, the reasons for the DefCore and these revisions
> are as follows:
>
>
>
> > I appreciate your comments at the Bylaws committee meeting. We
> don’t want to have the TC misunderstand the reasons for the bylaws
> change or
>
> > their consequences. These changes are focused solely on determining
> how and when the trademark can be used. We want to ensure that the
> TC
>
> > has an active role in the decisions. Consequently, we will shift
> back to the use of “core” for these procedures being set up.
> However, as
>
> > I noted, a number of members of DefCore Committee have expressed a
> desire to use a word other than “core” for this concept so we may
> see
>
> > an additional change in the name .
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or
> legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender
> and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to
> postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Defcore-committee mailing list
> Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee
_______________________________________________
legal-discuss mailing list
legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss