Overtrail - Overlay + Contrail On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Ashish Ranjan <aran...@live.com> wrote:
> naming suggestions: > > > k8l (pronounced: kay-eit-el) > > c8l (pronounced: see-eit-el) > > > (k8s folks may object to above :( ) > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Dev <dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org> on behalf of Ashish > Ranjan <aran...@live.com> > *Sent:* Friday, December 1, 2017 8:22:26 AM > *To:* Robert Raszuk; CARVER, PAUL > > *Cc:* dev@lists.opencontrail.org > *Subject:* Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name > > Well leaving aside what a commercial distribution should have or how to > monetize this, if we rename the project, fork is inevitable at its core. We > want a situation where xyz distribution is based on contrail at its core > not on <your fav name>.. Given that most of the code contribution is still > coming from Juniper Engineers, It will legitimately be sold as Contrail and > there will not be any motivation for a third party to distribute this as > different name. So in the end going to LF will yield little gain and we end > up with project diverging. > > Ashish > > _____________________________ > From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 6:17 AM > Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name > To: CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com> > Cc: <dev@lists.opencontrail.org> > > > > There is in fact one more very important aspect ... > > If I get OpenContrail with commercial support I can extend it in house as > it seems fit for a given project. > > If I get no matter how great binaries from any vendor I have to adjust my > projects to fit what given vendor supports. > And clearly any vendor is reluctant to implement custom features in common > code base for single customer env. > > Leave alone that internal support within enterprise is also much easier of > the white box as opposed to black box :). > > Personally other then for marketing reasons IMHO it would be much better > to get RedHat and Cannonical to ship > integrated OpenContrail within their linux distro packages then to care > what LF considers legal or illegal name. > > Best, > R. > > > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com> wrote: > > I don’t know how to convince the LF and Juniper lawyers, but I completely > agree. I want a commercial support arrangement, but I don’t want commercial > software that is “based on” or “derived from” Open Source. I want a > commercial support contract for software that **IS** Open Source. The > commonality of the naming is important because I specifically want to know > that when I buy Linux of OpenStack or Contrail from a vendor that what > they’re selling me is support and services, NOT permission to use > proprietary software that shares x% of its code with an Open Source project. > > > > To me the ideal would be multiple vendors all with their own separate > groups of customers but with everybody agreeing that Juniper’s Open > Contrail and X’s Open Contrail and Y’s Open Contrail are all the same > software, cooperatively developed by Juniper and X and Y, with vendors > differentiated by level of support, pricing, strength of presence in > various countries, knowledge of customers’ specific industries, etc. > > > > I know some lawyers, perhaps including AT&T’s lawyers, don’t like the GPL, > but I personally do like it specifically because I like knowing that the > software I’m paying for doesn’t merely **contain** some formerly open > source code, but is in fact currently and will be in the future, entirely > Open Source. > > > > -- > > Paul Carver > > VoIP: 732-545-7377 <(732)%20545-7377> > > Cell: 908-803-1656 <(908)%20803-1656> > > E: pcar...@att.com > > Q Instant Message > > It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future. > > > > > > *From:* Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org]*On Behalf Of *Robert > Raszuk > *Sent:* Friday, December 01, 2017 03:32 > *To:* Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* dev@lists.opencontrail.org > *Subject:* Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name > > > > The most valuable property of Open Contrail is that it comes from the same > code base as commercial Contrail. > > > > Renaming it means to many customers a divorce from the original principle. > > > > //RR > > > > On Dec 1, 2017 05:12, "Harshad Nakil" <hna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Forcing OpenContrail to give up identity that got us here since last five > years is not right. > > It is also being ungrateful to creativity. > > > > I never understood the insistence to be part of LF. > > Regards > > -Harshad > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@lists.opencontrail.org > http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org > > -- *Doug Lardo *// *Riot Games* // c: 818.620.7046 // summoner: Riot Antares Q: Why is this email 5 sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.opencontrail.org http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
