Open Stack

On 12/08/2015 01:03 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 12/08/2015 12:46 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> On 12/03/2015 05:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Chris Hoge wrote:
>>>> [...] The DefCore
>>>> committee would like to bring this topic for formal discussion to the
>>>> next TC meeting on December 8 to get input from TC on this issue.
>>>
>>> Added to next week agenda.
>>>
>>
>> I'm going to lay out my thoughts here, because they are slightly more
>> wordy and I'm sure as much as people enjoy me typing furiously in TC
>> meetings, it might be nice to read them in a structured manner.
> 
> Thanks for writing this up.  I agree with you.
> 
> I'd like to see the TC issue an official resolution on this topic if we
> can reach some reasonable consensus.

I'm very much in agreement with Monty's points, and have commented
similarly on the defcore review.

One of the common counters to that point of view I've heard in bringing
this up in conversations recently is "but interop isn't really important
for private cloud, people just want a thing that works for them". i.e.
this is irrelevant for trademarks for products primarily targeted at
private cloud.

To which my response is:

1) it is relevant. A cloud that is "OpenStack" means that you will be
able to get an off the shelf tool that runs on "OpenStack" and it should
work. Diverging from compatibility means that you lose access to this
channel of tools.

2) if this kind of compatibility isn't relevant to you, you don't need
to get the OpenStack trademark. The code is Apache2, and you can build
any interesting thing you want out of it, remixed to your hearts
content. It doesn't mean that the resultant thing is OpenStack (tm).

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net