On 02/05/2014 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Steve Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Andreas Jaeger" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "Mark McLoughlin" <[email protected]>, "OpenStack Development Mailing
>>> List (not for usage questions)"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "Jonathan Bryce" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:17:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-docs] Conventions on naming
>>>
>>> On 02/05/2014 01:09 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 11:52 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>>> Steve Gordon wrote:
>>>>>>> From: "Anne Gentle" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> Based on today's Technical Committee meeting and conversations with the
>>>>>>> OpenStack board members, I need to change our Conventions for service
>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Conventions#Service_and_project_names
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Previously we have indicated that Ceilometer could be named OpenStack
>>>>>>> Telemetry and Heat could be named OpenStack Orchestration. That's not
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> case, and we need to change those names.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To quote the TC meeting, ceilometer and heat are "other modules" (second
>>>>>>> sentence from 4.1 in
>>>>>>> http://www.openstack.org/legal/bylaws-of-the-openstack-foundation/)
>>>>>>> distributed with the Core OpenStack Project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's what I intend to change the wiki page to:
>>>>>>> Here's the list of project and module names and their official names
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> capitalization:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ceilometer module
>>>>>>> Cinder: OpenStack Block Storage
>>>>>>> Glance: OpenStack Image Service
>>>>>>> Heat module
>>>>>>> Horizon: OpenStack dashboard
>>>>>>> Keystone: OpenStack Identity Service
>>>>>>> Neutron: OpenStack Networking
>>>>>>> Nova: OpenStack Compute
>>>>>>> Swift: OpenStack Object Storage
>>>>>
>>>>> Small correction. The TC had not indicated that Ceilometer could be
>>>>> named "OpenStack Telemetry" and Heat could be named "OpenStack
>>>>> Orchestration". We formally asked[1] the board to allow (or disallow)
>>>>> that naming (or more precisely, that use of the trademark).
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/resolutions/20131106-ceilometer-and-heat-official-names
>>>>>
>>>>> We haven't got a formal and clear answer from the board on that request
>>>>> yet. I suspect they are waiting for progress on DefCore before deciding.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you need an answer *now* (and I suspect you do), it might make sense
>>>>> to ask foundation staff/lawyers about using those OpenStack names with
>>>>> the current state of the bylaws and trademark usage rules, rather than
>>>>> the hypothetical future state under discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, yes - I think having the Foundation confirm that it's
>>>> appropriate to use "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs is the right thing.
>>>>
>>>> There's an awful lot of confusion about the subject and, ultimately,
>>>> it's the Foundation staff who are responsible for enforcing (and giving
>>>> advise to people on) the trademark usage rules. I've cc-ed Jonathan so
>>>> he knows about this issue.
>>>>
>>>> But FWIW, the TC's request is asking for Ceilometer and Heat to be
>>>> allowed use their "Telemetry" and "Orchestration" names in *all* of the
>>>> circumstances where e.g. Nova is allowed use its "Compute" name.
>>>>
>>>> Reading again this clause in the bylaws:
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>> it could well be said that this case of naming conventions in the docs
>>>> for the entire OpenStack Project falls under the "distributed with" case
>>>> and it is perfectly fine to refer to "OpenStack Telemetry" in the docs.
>>>> I'd really like to see the Foundation staff give their opinion on this,
>>>> though.
>
> In this case, we are talking about documentation that is produced and
> distributed with the integrated release to cover the Core OpenStack Project
> and the “modules" that are distributed together with the Core OpenStack
> Project in the integrated release. This is the intended use case for the
> exception Mark quoted above from the Bylaws, and I think it is perfectly fine
> to refer to the integrated components in the OpenStack release documentation
> as OpenStack components.
What about if I talk about OpenStack at a conference (like I'm doing
today)? What should I say: "Orchestration", "Heat module" (or just Heat")?
What about all the OpenStack distributors and users like SUSE,
Rackspace, HP, Red Hat etc? What should they use in their documentation
and software?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
