openstack team mailing list archive

[Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Bryan, comments inline...

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Bryan Taylor <btaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 04:52 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Taylor <btaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't know, but there are several obvious next steps:
>  - Document publicly the criteria for a project to fit
>
> Not really sure there needs to be criteria, really...
>
> If it uses the trademarked word "OpenStack" it should has to have some
> criteria. We should obviously pitch a wide tent, but if that tent doesn't
> have an inside and and outside, there's no reason to pitch it.

There is a well-defined trademark policy for OpenStack:

http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/

What is being used for "OpenStack Satellite" is simply the Word Mark,
which is liberally applied to refer to the OpenStack project
ecosystem. IANAL and all that, but I think the following is likely
true:

a) Projects/products listed under the OpenStack Satellite umbrella may
not use the OpenStack *trademark* unless that project/product has
applied for permission to use the trademark
b) Satellite can use the OpenStack logo as long as the word Satellite
is more prominent than the name OpenStack

> I'd see the
> criteria as something like: works with openstack or actively working towards
> it, open source, unencumbered by patents or other nonsense.

Perhaps somebody who remembers could pipe up, but I know that
discussion about whether or not proprietary products should go into
Satellite came up at the summit session. What was the decision reached
there? I just cannot remember.

However, after re-reading the OpenStack trademark policy, it seems
pretty clear to me that if we wish to use the term "OpenStack
Satellite" as the name of this umbrella, that Satellite absolutely may
not contain products primarily designated as commercial solutions.

>  - Identify resources available to participating projects
>
> What do you mean here? Are you referring to resources in the sense of
> online source control and bug tracking, etc?
>
> Those are reasonable examples. The SourceForge stuff comes to mind. Maybe a
> mailing list or wiki. Maybe somebody would donate a slice of a cloud
> environment to test against, etc...

Sure. I think a lot of that stuff will happen in a grass-roots fashion
once the main site is up and going.

To be clear, the resources of the OpenStack project infrastructure
team at Rackspace (which is a support organization for OpenStack core
projects) is not going to be an official resource for Satellite
projects. Our mission is to provide support for core projects around
source control, patch queue management, project management, CI and QA.
I'm sure some of us will provide assistance to Satellite projects, but
it would not be in an "official" capacity. Just want to be clear, so
folks have the right expectations! :)

>  - Formalize it with the PPB and unleash it
>
> There is no reason to have the PPB involved in this, IMHO...
>
> Well, use of the trademark should be blessed. I do think some structure will
> arise naturally as these projects come together. It's should be more than
> just a random collection of stuff. I think the analogy to a linux distro is
> a good one: the core represents the packages that always get installed, the
> satellite represents stuff that builds on the core and on each other.
> Somebody is going to be finding the paths in the grass and paving them and
> putting the OpenStack word on them.

As mentioned above, trademark policy is well-defined and would need to
be done on a case-by-case basis for projects that wish to have
OpenStack trademarks in their name. The use of the OpenStack word mark
in the name "OpenStack Satellite" also is well-defined.

That said, I'll bring this up at the PPB meeting next Tuesday and see
if I can get some guidance.

Your other points I agree with :)

Cheers!
-jay