Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:06:22 -0500
"Hauke Mehrtens"  wrote:

> We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
> between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
> merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
> developers were invited to these meetings. We had productive and
> friendly discussions about the problems and our goals.

Congratulations to both sides on finding a path back from a bad
situation that my personal issues exacerbated.  I hope the combined
project can move forward in a positive new environment.

> It is still not decided that both project will finally merge and we
> haven't decided on the name to use, which parts of the infrastructure
> and many other things. In general we are agreeing on many parts and I
> am looking forward to a good merged ending for all of us.

I agree with those on this thread that suggest changin the name but in
a Co-Branded manner to being with.

As part of this those I'm thinking that having a more
'commercial-quality' flavour and a more 'community' flavour branches
would be useful.

I know that one of the struggles with OpenWrt in the past has been a
lot of decisions for expediency and/or testing bleeding edge stuff.

I'm thinking that the 'commercial-quality' flavour should look more
like the type of hard-core approach of the modern linux kernel; one of
the problems the kernel had when growing up, which I think is mirrored
in openwrt/lede is a shift from a less structured community of
'hackers' (not in the cracking sense), to a core infrastructure
project, that has made the main kernel a less approachable project for
those who aren't professionally involved in kernel work, but has been
necessary for code/kernel quality.

I've thought of a couple of different ways of looking at this.

There is the approach that says that OpenWrt/LEDE concentrates on the
build system (kernel + minimum set of packages, but also ubus, ubox and
other core components to produce an SDK that is used to build everything
else; and doesn't not by itself produce a working firmware image).
This includes things like wifi components where untested code should
not be part of what non-engineers are working on or being exposed to in
a proper wifi test lab.

The next level of that would be having different 'integration layers'
which combine the core components plus relevant other packages into a
useful 'product'.

The purpose of the integration layers is to allow experimentation and
community development of for some layers, which is more bleeding edge
and/or 'many eyes makes all bugs shallow', vs. the current stated core
mission which is a 'commercial-quality' router firmware, which
integration layer would be subject to more stringent standards and QA
practices (but could benefit from community developed
features/enhancements/bug requests).

Ideally for the commercial-quality router integration layer the
ecosystem of businesses benefiting from OpenWrt/LEDE would step up and
participate in kernel-esque collaboration.

Another approach says that the 'core mission' is the only thing there
is really the manpower for in the forseeable future and moves the
project to a more kernel-esque level of rigour, including the relevant
subset of the various packages feeds and luci that are part of the
'commercial-quality firmware', and split out the community parts so
that they don't detract from the primary efforts.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how much I can contribute to either effort;
I'm interested but not sure that this is how I ought to be using the
bulk of my time, and I'm not sure a community edition really has enough
people with enough time to make it work.

That's in part why I think having a core SDK, plus a cherry-picked
'commercial-quality' sets of feeds is the way to go; it allows
community users to concentrate on efforts that not only interest them
part aren't doing more harm than good.  Certainly there will be some
community members who will participate in both, but I think for the
benefit of the 'core mission' raising the bar on the core parts is a
necessary step even though it will be painful.  However, I think it
would be helpful to have a little blurb about *why* and *what* change
is being implemented both on the site and on commit templates, so that
contributors are less likely to be taken by surprise with the hard-core
approach.

When I first saw the fork I thought a way to refresh community but now
I'm thinking David Woodhouse's approach is more appropriate for the
'core mission', and community efforts ought to be more like 'Linux
Mint' (only community) on top of the core distro.

In large part the difference for me has been what I was having medical
issues leading to vocal and unhelpful thinking and messages and now
that I have recovered I see a great deal more value in the rigorous
approach, at least for the core.

Regards,

Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Dana Myers]

On 12/25/2016 10:52 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:

OpenBikeShed?


Love it! Though it's fair to observe that marketing (which this is at this 
point)
is pretty much 100% bike-shedding.

Cheers,
Dana
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Philip Prindeville]

On Dec 21, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Russell Senior  wrote:

>> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli  writes:
> 
>>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
>>> change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
>>> the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the
>>> popularity of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for
>>> Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the
>>> merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT
>>> folks and SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT
>>> or alike.
> 
> Florian> The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by
> Florian> SPI, so we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I
> Florian> meant to say here, nothing more.  -- Florian
> 
> Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going to be
> needed, but I can't help but think of this:
> 
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
> 
> 
> PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)
> 
> 

OpenBikeShed?

"All the convenience with none of the security..."

-Philip
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:58, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:
> 
>> On 22/12/2016 09:42, David Lang wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:
>>>
> Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
> but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
> point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the
> historical
> reasons for the name.

 a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...
>>>
>>> Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT
>>> docs and/or forum threads?
>>>
>>> That's a high cost.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>
>> it is something worth considering if the alternative content is
>> available and easy to look up and if we keep archives in ro mode of
>> existing content.
>>
>> claiming that there is only one option and no alternatives is just not
>> constructive and wont lead to a broad discussion during which we can
>> find a consensus.
> 
> sorry, I did not mean to imply there is only one option.
> 
> I think there is a lot of value in the OpenWRT name and all the links
> around the web that refer to it. So there is a huge cost to going with a
> different name.
> 
> IMHO, this makes it an easy decision to make, but not the only one
> possible.

well i think you are just not considering options properly but simply
claiming that this is the easy road to take so lets take it. i find your
mail to be the contrary of something that can be used to start a broad
discussion which will hopefully lead to a consensus.

John
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:


On 22/12/2016 09:42, David Lang wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:


Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
reasons for the name.


a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...


Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT
docs and/or forum threads?

That's a high cost.

David Lang


it is something worth considering if the alternative content is
available and easy to look up and if we keep archives in ro mode of
existing content.

claiming that there is only one option and no alternatives is just not
constructive and wont lead to a broad discussion during which we can
find a consensus.


sorry, I did not mean to imply there is only one option.

I think there is a lot of value in the OpenWRT name and all the links around the 
web that refer to it. So there is a huge cost to going with a different name.


IMHO, this makes it an easy decision to make, but not the only one possible.

David Lang
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:42, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
>>> but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
>>> point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
>>> reasons for the name.
>>
>> a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...
> 
> Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT
> docs and/or forum threads?
> 
> That's a high cost.
> 
> David Lang

it is something worth considering if the alternative content is
available and easy to look up and if we keep archives in ro mode of
existing content.

claiming that there is only one option and no alternatives is just not
constructive and wont lead to a broad discussion during which we can
find a consensus.

John
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[David Lang]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, John Crispin wrote:


Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
reasons for the name.


a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...


Is that going to break all links in discussions that point at OpenWRT docs 
and/or forum threads?


That's a high cost.

David Lang
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[John Crispin]

On 22/12/2016 09:36, David Lang wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Dave Taht wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>>
 From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
 part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
 cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
 positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
 to the development moving forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>
>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>> sense.
> 
> I'll point out OpenOffice vs LibreOffice and the fact that years after
> development of OO has really stopped, people are still finding it and
> downloading it instead of LO (it's replacement)
> 
> there's a lot of stuff out there pointing at OpenWRT, unless you are
> going to replace all the OpenWRT stuff with pointers to LEDE, you are
> better off taking advantage of the millions of references to OpenWRT.
> 
> David Lang
> 
> Yes, the name is pointing at a product that doesn't exist any longer,
> but Deb and Ian aren't involved with Debian any longer either. At some
> point the fact that a name is known matters far more than the historical
> reasons for the name.

a problem that can be solved by a http redirect ...

John
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Russell Senior]

> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli  writes:

>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
>> change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
>> the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the
>> popularity of "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for
>> Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the
>> merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT
>> folks and SPI may have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT
>> or alike.

Florian> The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by
Florian> SPI, so we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I
Florian> meant to say here, nothing more.  -- Florian

Not that a choice on a name, with taste and discretion, isn't going to be
needed, but I can't help but think of this:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality


PS: OpenLEDE. ;-)


-- 
Russell Senior, President
russ...@personaltelco.net
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/21/2016 07:30 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> 
> On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli  > wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  > wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
> >>>
>  From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term
> OpenWrt as
>  part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>  cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>  positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand
> attached
>  to the development moving forward.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has
> a lot of
> >>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
> >>
> >> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
> >> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
> >> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding
> edge,
> >> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
> >> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
> >> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals,
> coherently,
> >> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has
> some
> > downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the
> internet)
> > were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the
> weaknesses of
> > OpenWRT project.
> >
> > I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
> > significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT
> project.
> >
> > But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
> > brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
> 
> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
> 
> 
> A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT"
> trademark is owned by SPI:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4805:r3y94m.2.1
> 
> If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal issue.
> In other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE", there is no
> legal issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.
> 
> SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark that
> appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a purely
> hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do not merge
> and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to FreeWRT or
> alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the "FreeWRT"
> trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to OpenWRT.
> 
> My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce this
> name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find
> themselves equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like in
> "LEAD the way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"? While
> the core LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name correctly,
> try explaining it to the world outside. For this reason, "OpenWRT" is a
> better choice imho.
> 
> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change
> may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the project,
> a reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity of
> "OpenWRT". It could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device) or
> "LibreWRT". Of course this is all conditional on the merge of OpenWRT
> and LEDE. If the projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and SPI may
> have a claim against the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.
> 
> By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
> registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4805:8zgvq2.8.1

The point was that OpenWrt is already registered and managed by SPI, so
we may as well keep using it, and that is just what I meant to say here,
nothing more.
-- 
Florian
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Val Kulkov]

On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli  wrote:

> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
> >>>
>  From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
>  part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
>  cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
>  positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
>  to the development moving forward.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot
> of
> >>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
> >>
> >> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
> >> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
> >> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
> >> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
> >> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
> >> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
> >> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some
> > downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet)
> > were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of
> > OpenWRT project.
> >
> > I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is
> > significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
> >
> > But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better
> > brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.
>
> Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
> that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
> about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
> OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
> decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
>

A trademark exists to protect its owner's rights. The "OpenWRT" trademark
is owned by SPI:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4805:r3y94m.2.1

If there is no unauthorised use of a trademark, there is no legal issue. In
other words, if the merged project continues as "LEDE", there is no legal
issue in respect of the "OpenWRT" trademark.

SPI also has the right to oppose registration or use of a trademark that
appears confusingly similar to "OpenWRT". This seems to be a purely
hypothetical situation, but here it is: if OpenWRT and LEDE do not merge
and for some reason the LEDE folks decide to rename LEDE to FreeWRT or
alike, SPI may have a legal claim against the use of the "FreeWRT"
trademark that some people may see as confusingly similar to OpenWRT.

My main objection to "LEDE" is that I have no idea how to pronounce this
name correctly. I suspect that many English speakers will find themselves
equally confused about how to pronounce "LEDE". Is it like in "LEAD the
way", or like in "LEAD, a heavy metal", or like "LE DE"? While the core
LEDE community might know how to pronounce the name correctly, try
explaining it to the world outside. For this reason, "OpenWRT" is a better
choice imho.

However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name change may
be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of the project, a
reboot, especially if the new name rides on the popularity of "OpenWRT". It
could be for example "OpenLD" (LD for Linux Device) or "LibreWRT". Of
course this is all conditional on the merge of OpenWRT and LEDE. If the
projects do not merge, the OpenWRT folks and SPI may have a claim against
the use of OpenLD or LibreWRT or alike.

By the way, there is a pending application at the USPTO for the
registration of "LEDE" trademark for use in some software or websites:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4805:8zgvq2.8.1

- Val
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
>>>
 From a PR perspective, I strongly suggest keeping the term OpenWrt as
 part of the branding of the project moving forward. It can just be
 cosmetic (web site, etc.) but the name has so much history, and
 positive connotation, that you don't want to lose that brand attached
 to the development moving forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, I think this is an obvious choice to make. OpenWRT has a lot of
>>> name recognition, it would be foolish to throw that away.
>>
>> Just to take the other side for rhetorical purposes, a purpose of a
>> re-branding exercise is to show a change in the "product" or
>> organisation behind it. OpenWrt is widely known... as a bleeding edge,
>> sometimes unstable, somewhat hard to use 3rd party firmware. DD-Wrt
>> and Tomato get a lot more press for some reason. So do things like
>> Yocto. If lede were to succeed in meeting its other goals, coherently,
>> preserving "lede" and moving forward as a separate project does make
>> sense.
>>
> 
> +1 for this. OpenWRT brand isn't 100% positive recognition, it has some 
> downsides too. Many people (I know and/or have seen around the internet) 
> were discouraged from contributing or using it due to the weaknesses of 
> OpenWRT project.
> 
> I like more the LEDE branding for this reason. It conveys that it is 
> significantly different, possibly for the better, from OpenWRT project.
> 
> But I don't have enough information to say for sure what is the better 
> brand to keep, so this is just my opinion.

Keeping or not the OpenWrt, or LEDE name is obviously part of the things
that need to be agreed upon before proceeding with a merger. If not
about the "brand", "recognition" or other more subjective criteria,
OpenWrt is a trademark, so that needs to be factored in for the
decision, in particular if there is any legal activity going on.
-- 
Florian
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel