Open Stack

On 15/11/12 13:56, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Zane Bitter wrote:
>> In trademark terms, then, "Core" is all the remaining projects in
>> OpenStack that haven't been put into an excluded category
>> (Library/Gating/Supporting).
>
> Well, I think the main idea behind Mark's motion is to separate the two
> concepts. Bylaws define "Core" as "software modules which are part of an
> integrated release and for which an OpenStack trademark may be used".
> What Mark proposes is to make the trademark-protected "Core" the
> *subset* of software modules (part of the integrated release) for which
> an OpenStack trademark may be used.

Sure, which is effectively creating another category... Library, Gating, 
Supporting, Core and Other. I'm not saying that would be _bad_, but I 
don't think it's _necessary_. My impression of the TC discussions is 
that folks are worried about whether we should add any more projects to 
OpenStack at all, not so much about whether new projects could use the 
OpenStack name when shipped independently. (If I've misinterpreted that 
and somebody *is* worried about the trademark, perhaps they could chime in?)

>> [...]
>> What I'm suggesting here is that trademarks are not so much "an issue
>> that can be punted to the Board" as just a non-issue. I don't think
>> there's any need to create another category that's excluded from the
>> trademark because there is already broad agreement on what is excluded
>> from the trademark (Library, Gating and Supporting projects) and why.
>
> I disagree. There is clearly no consensus yet on what has the right to
> use the "OpenStack" name, or what components you need to run in order to
> call yourself "an OpenStack cloud". For example, Horizon is core, but
> Rackspace and HP Clouds (while calling themselves OpenStack clouds)
> don't use it. Disconnecting this question (which is BoD territory) from
> the question of which projects can grow under the OpenStack development
> umbrella (which is TC territory) is therefore useful.

There *was* a suggestion in the thread that all (Core) OpenStack 
services should be required for an "OpenStack Cloud". However, if the 
BoD wanted to institute something like that (and I imagine it would be 
part of some kind of certification program) they would either have to 
use a trademark other than just "OpenStack" to do so or change the 
bylaws (which would be almost impossible). Because the current bylaws 
define Core as exactly the opposite: it's the set of things which are 
entitled to use the trademark even when shipped independently of the others.

Existing usage by Rackspace, HP, SwiftStack and others is consistent 
with the bylaws. I'm not saying that implies a consensus; but nor is it 
evidence of a lack of consensus.

I do think there is a broad consensus on what should _not_ be able to 
use the trademark. Everybody agrees that importing openstack-common into 
a project should not enable that project to use the OpenStack name. 
Everybody agrees that building a project on the openstack-ci 
infrastructure should not enable that project to use the OpenStack name.

The intention of the bylaws seems to be that anything that both is part 
of OpenStack and is not in any of the Library/Gating/Supporting 
categories (which seem pretty well understood and agreed-upon) should be 
entitled to use the OpenStack name. Separating the trademark and project 
membership issues is basically inviting the Board to create another 
category - a category that I haven't heard anybody actually ask for, and 
which does nothing to alleviate the concerns of those who worry that 
*any* new projects take resources away from existing Core projects.

If the BoD wants to create another category of trademark exceptions, 
they are of course welcome to do so, but I don't think the TC needs to 
be actively pushing for one. That would seem like a form of trademark 
policy advocacy, even if it's motivated by wanting to avoid trademark 
policy, which everybody in this discussion has been pretty unanimous 
about :)

cheers,
Zane.