On 14/11/13 18:41, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
To Mark’s earlier point, this is the relevant language in 4.1(b)
(http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/):
"The other modules which are part of the OpenStack Project, but not the Core
OpenStack Project may not be identified using the OpenStack trademark except when
distributed with the Core OpenStack Project."
In this sentence "distributed with the Core OpenStack Project" is another way of saying "distributed with the
integrated release.” Since Heat and Ceilometer are part of the integrated release starting with Havana, as voted on by the
TC, the projects (a.k.a. "modules") can be referred to with an OpenStack generic name, such as "OpenStack
Orchestration," without being added to the "Core" list. Other modules such as Devstack which are not
distributed as part of the integrated release could not as they don’t meet the exception in the sentence above.
What about modules like Oslo, that are distributed with the integrated
release? The by-laws go to all the trouble of explicitly creating a
category for it (Library projects) to keep it out of Core, but you are
saying that because Oslo is part of the integrated release there is
effectively no distinction between it and Core. Does that mean that
anybody building their own service using Oslo (a category that includes
just about every Related project) can use the OpenStack trademark? That
seems to be what you are saying.
Your reading seems to skip over the word "when", or rather to treat it
as if it had the same meaning as "if".
A company providing, say, a standalone Neutron distribution can call it
OpenStack Networking, because Neutron is Core. By my reading, another
company providing a standalone Heat distribution could NOT call it
OpenStack Orchestration, however, because we explicitly created the
category of 'Integrated' projects to no other effect than to exclude
Heat and Ceilometer from using the OpenStack trademark. Of course if a
company distributed both Heat and Neutron then it _could_ call Heat
OpenStack Orchestration because it is being distributed with Neutron,
and Neutron is Core.
I'm glad to see that just about everyone recognises that this outcome
was absurd. I don't believe it was intentional - it was down to a
combination of folks who felt that "Core" ought to have some meaning in
plain English in addition to the meaning that is defined in the by-laws
and folks who erroneously believed that the by-laws require _all_
(rather than _any_) Core projects for trademark eligibility.
I'm pleased to see the TC correcting the mistake according to the
apparent meaning of the by-laws. If the board feels that the by-laws
don't actually mean what they say, then perhaps they should be amended
to remove all of the meaningless "distinctions without a difference" -
if your interpretation is the right one, the only two categories
required are "Integrated" and "Official". Be careful, though: I'm pretty
sure that library projects like Oslo are excluded for a good reason.
cheers,
Zane.
To provide some context from the drafting process when this was written, the
intent was to arrive at a set of modules explicitly approved by the Board as
part of the Core OpenStack Project which would be useful for determining
interop and commercial product and service trademark usage. This is along the
lines of the “spider” work that has been going on. The exception in the
sentence quoted above from 4.1(b) was to allow for an integrated release that
included additional modules that the TC felt had the technical merit to be
developed, released and distributed as part of the total set of OpenStack
software, but that may not have the universal applicability of a module of the
Core OpenStack Project that became a required component for commercial
trademark use.
Jonathan
On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Boris Renski <bren...@mirantis.com> wrote:
In this case, statement by Mark below is inaccurate. Until BoD passes the resolution for Heat to call itself,
"OpenStack Orchestration" (which I don't believe it has), Heat remains "an integrated project
called Heat" and NOT "OpenStack Orchestration"
Am I getting it right?
*Can* the projects themselves use the word "OpenStack" such as
"OpenStack Orchestration"? Answer: yes absolutely. This is already a
done deal and we are already doing it in practice. And its covered
under the bylaws once they are included in the integrated release by
TC vote. There is no need for further action.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
Boris Renski wrote:
None of this answers the question of "what is currently the difference
between core and integrated." I agree with everything you said, but it
sounds to me like *integrated* = *core* at this point.
Well, no.
"Integrated" is the list of projects we produce and release together
every 6 months. That's fully determined by the TC.
"The Core OpenStack Project" as defined in the bylaws is the list of
projects that can call themselves "OpenStack X". The TC recommends that
it's the same as the list of integrated projects, but the BoD may decide
to exclude some of those (since the bylaws grant them that power).
And then there are all the other fun use cases for the word "core".
So while there is definitely a relation between "Integrated" and one of
the many use cases of the term "Core", I definitely wouldn't go as far
as saying *integrated* = *core* at this point.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
foundation-bo...@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org
Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
