Mailing List Archive: Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack

Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack

Oct 10, 2012, 2:42 PM

Post #1 of 12 (2289 views)

Dear Foundation Members,

I believe a key role of the Foundation is to protect the brand that is OpenStack.

After raising the issue with Rackspace and Jonathan Bryce several days ago, yesterday I sought my fellow Foundation Board members opinion on Rackspace's use of the word "certified" in media releases 6 days ago, tweets from their staff, and as late as yesterday in this mail out to the summit attendees below. I emailed my Board colleagues because I thought raising this with the elected representatives of the OpenStack Community would alert them to the potential ramifications of this issue. As I see it Rackspace have jumped the gun and are ambush marketing.

The main problems I see:

1. The timing is unfortunate because there is no clear Board/Foundation policy as yet.
2. I believe it is the Foundation's right to determine what is certified and what is not under the terms of the Foundation's trademarks.
3. This type of activity is clearly open to abuse. Any operator regardless of size, integrity or professionalism could adopt a similar approach. Therefore it needs to be dealt with urgently.

Leaving Rackspace's actions aside, I made a suggestion for a certification process for training materials and deliverables that they be offered to a community sourced committee for review and approval. If this proposal is accepted then I would ask Rackspace that they offer up their course materials for this review, and that this might form a baseline for establishing the certification benchmark.

If certified qualifications are not valued in the USA, courses that present an official certification are highly valued in Australia, Asia and Europe as clear markers of achievement. Integrity of that certification is key.

If this was a mistake, and I sincerely hope it was, it is able to be, and should be, corrected.

If we cannot gather enough support to resist such opportunistic behaviour then we (as a community) risk letting this run away on us. The Foundation needs to formulate a considered and effective response on this very important topic. It needs your help. Make your opinions known.

Cheers
Tristan

From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 1:08 PM
To: Randy Bias; Tristan Goode
Cc: foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and guidelines around use of words like "official"

Tristan,

The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.

To be clear, our offer is a "Rackspace Certified" training program for OpenStack, not "OpenStack certified" for OpenStack. We are putting our brand behind the training, not representing the brand of the project itself. It has never been part of our launch messaging or positioning, and if that was ever done it was an unfortunate mistake and not the company position.

I 100% agree with you that should someone wish to have "OpenStack Certified" training that there should be rules governing such usage. We do need to agree whether or not training certification is a mission the foundation should pursue or not. Are there good examples in the open source community we believe we should emulate?

Jim

From: "Randy L. Bias" <randyb@cloudscaling.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:46 PM
To: Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com>
Cc: "foundation-board@lists.openstack.org" <foundation-board@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and guidelines around use of words like "official"

I generally concur and I think this is a good catch. Clearly the discussion isn't about RAX, but what the interim strategy is while things like what "certification" means are ironed out.

However, I do want to point out that it might take a while to resolve that issue and I'm inclined to avoid retarding the adoption of OpenStack. Is it possible to allow for some kind of interim usage in a way that allows for revisiting this later with folks already using "certified" and also closing the door on potential abusers in the short term? We need to be shown taking some control of this, but I suspect that it will take a while for definitions.

hanks,

--Randy

Co-Founder & CTO, Cloudscaling
+1 (415) 787-2253 [78-SCALE for SMS or voice]
TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias

On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com> wrote:

Dear Board,

I am very concerned at the use of the word "certified" in recent media releases by Rackspace for their training offerings, and most recently in this mail out below.

I've no doubt Rackspace's course is worthy of being OpenStack certified when there is such a thing, but until there is formality around this then I do not believe anyone should use this word or any other word that implies endorsement from OpenStack even loosely (as this is in some contexts) to describe any commercial offering.

With no formal certification guidelines in place or policy on use of such words, this has a real danger of de-valuing the OpenStack brand if (when) less reputable organisations or basically anyone gratuitously use the word. My reading of media releases around this in the last few days is that media have picked up the Rackspace offering as OpenStack certified.

After mentioning this to Jonathan several days ago to his credit "certified" was removed from parts of the Rackspace web site, but not all, and today this email below has gone out to the conference attendee list.

After following up with Jonathan yesterday he advised:

'Theoretically, this has always been an allowed usage under the "built for OpenStack" license, which Rackspace among others has signed up for (http://www.openstack.org/brand/built-for-openstack-logo/). The requirement is to provide a clear indication that the product is a company's offering FOR OpenStack, not FROM OpenStack (i.e. Foundation).'

This is far too loose and allows anyone use of such terms, the result is that OpenStack "certified" training soon means nothing.

I'm 100% for having officially certified courses asap. Perhaps a solution is that any company that wishes to have certified or official or similar (Rackspace, Hastexo, Mirantis immediately come to mind) submits their curriculum and clear deliverables to a review panel of some type drawn from the Membership? This would ensure that OpenStack people get training that they want and the certified term is used appropriately.

Until then statements like below should not be permissible and should probably be retracted. By acting on this decisively I see the Foundation truly protecting the brand that is OpenStack.

I welcome your discussion.

Thanks
Tristan

From: Rackspace - OpenStack Summit Sponsor [mailto:redcarpetevents@rackspace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 11:11 AM
To: tristan@aptira.com
Subject: Launch Your Career Into The Clouds

Dear OpenStack Summit Attendee --
Rackspace has a lot going on during the upcoming OpenStack Summit and we hope you will join us for our lively- and always informative- conference sessions.
Keynote and Sessions for Wednesday, October 17:
9:30 a.m.
KEYNOTE: Running the World's Largest Open Cloud (Troy Toman, Senior Director of Engineering for Cloud Compute)
11:00 a.m.
This is Your Career. This is Your Career on OpenStack. (Niki Acosta, Product Evangelist)
11:50 a.m.
Big Data on OpenStack: A Rackspace Use Case (Natasha Gajic, Enterprise, Business Intelligence Lead)
Stop by the Rackspace booth to talk all things open cloud with our team of experts. And while you're there, learn how you can accelerate your career by becoming one of the first Certified OpenStack technicians. OpenStack public training classes are now posted at www.rackspacetraining.com. Certification exams begin in December so be sure to stop by the Rackspace booth to get more information.
And of course it wouldn't be a Rackspace-sponsored summit without an evening of fun to top it all off...
Reach for the Clouds Rooftop Party
Tuesday October 16
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Altitude Sky Lounge
RSVP NOW
Catch a ride to the celebration via the complimentary Rackspace pedicabs outside the Hyatt from 5:45 p.m. - 6:45 p.m. or enjoy the short walk to the lounge located atop the Marriott Gaslamp.
See you soon,
Your Friends At Rackspace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to OpenStack Summit attendees by Rackspace, a sponsor of the event.
If you do not want to receive a handful of emails from the Summit organizers and sponsors this week, please click here to unsubscribe ( [unsubscribe] )
Rackspace - OpenStack Summit Sponsor
5000 Walzem, San Antonio, TX, 78218
_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list
Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

Re: Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

markmc at redhat

Oct 11, 2012, 3:53 AM

Post #2 of 12 (2201 views)

Permalink

Hi Tristan,

Thanks for raising this openly. That's very healthy IMHO

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 08:42 +1100, Tristan Goode wrote:
> Dear Foundation Members,
>
> I believe a key role of the Foundation is to protect the brand that is
> OpenStack.
>
> After raising the issue with Rackspace and Jonathan Bryce several days
> ago, yesterday I sought my fellow Foundation Board members opinion on
> Rackspace's use of the word "certified" in media releases 6 days ago,
...

It took me a little bit of digging to find out what exactly you were
referring to, so for others reference it was the RAX "Launch Your Career
Into The Clouds" email sent out to summit attendees which said:

"learn how you can accelerate your career by becoming one of the first
Certified OpenStack technicians. OpenStack public training classes
are now posted at www.rackspacetraining.com."

The "Certified OpenStack Technician" brand should definitely be
something that the Foundation should seek to control. IMHO, it would
only be appropriate for training course run by the Foundation itself or
a Foundation contractor.

However, the response you got:

> From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
..
> Tristan,
>
> The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
> not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
> aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
>
> To be clear, our offer is a "Rackspace Certified" training program for
> OpenStack, not "OpenStack certified" for OpenStack. We are putting
> our brand behind the training, not representing the brand of the
> project itself.

seems pretty "fair dinkum" to me :)

The term "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" makes it quite
clear that it's not a certification endorsed by the Foundation. The
Foundation should encourage such programs as part of growing the
ecosystem.

While a training course offered directly by the Foundation sounds like a
good idea, I struggle to see how it would be useful without focusing on
a specific OpenStack distribution and, if it did that, it would mean the
Foundation being seen as endorsing a specific distribution.

Cheers,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

doug.hellmann at dreamhost

Oct 11, 2012, 4:22 AM

Post #3 of 12 (2191 views)

Permalink

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
>
> Thanks for raising this openly. That's very healthy IMHO
>
> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 08:42 +1100, Tristan Goode wrote:
> > Dear Foundation Members,
> >
> > I believe a key role of the Foundation is to protect the brand that is
> > OpenStack.
> >
> > After raising the issue with Rackspace and Jonathan Bryce several days
> > ago, yesterday I sought my fellow Foundation Board members opinion on
> > Rackspace's use of the word "certified" in media releases 6 days ago,
> ...
>
> It took me a little bit of digging to find out what exactly you were
> referring to, so for others reference it was the RAX "Launch Your Career
> Into The Clouds" email sent out to summit attendees which said:
>
> "learn how you can accelerate your career by becoming one of the first
> Certified OpenStack technicians. OpenStack public training classes
> are now posted at www.rackspacetraining.com."
>
> The "Certified OpenStack Technician" brand should definitely be
> something that the Foundation should seek to control. IMHO, it would
> only be appropriate for training course run by the Foundation itself or
> a Foundation contractor.
>
> However, the response you got:
>
> > From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
> ..
> > Tristan,
> >
> > The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
> > not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
> > aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
> >
> > To be clear, our offer is a "Rackspace Certified" training program for
> > OpenStack, not "OpenStack certified" for OpenStack. We are putting
> > our brand behind the training, not representing the brand of the
> > project itself.
>
> seems pretty "fair dinkum" to me :)
>
> The term "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" makes it quite
> clear that it's not a certification endorsed by the Foundation. The
> Foundation should encourage such programs as part of growing the
> ecosystem.
>
> While a training course offered directly by the Foundation sounds like a
> good idea, I struggle to see how it would be useful without focusing on
> a specific OpenStack distribution and, if it did that, it would mean the
> Foundation being seen as endorsing a specific distribution.
>

Agreed. It seems much more practical for the Foundation to develop criteria
by which it would give permission to use the OpenStack brand in a
certification course and then certify the training. This would allow the
courseware offerings to differ in delivery, pacing, style, etc., while
ensuring a common core of content.

Doug

Re: Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

tristan at aptira

Oct 11, 2012, 7:16 AM

Post #4 of 12 (2204 views)

Permalink

Hi Mark,

> It took me a little bit of digging to find out what exactly you were referring to, so for
> others reference it was the RAX "Launch Your Career Into The Clouds" email sent
> out to summit attendees which said:
>
> "learn how you can accelerate your career by becoming one of the first
> Certified OpenStack technicians. OpenStack public training classes
> are now posted at www.rackspacetraining.com."
>
>
> However, the response you got:
>
> > From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
> ..
> > Tristan,
> >
> > The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
> > not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
> > aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
> >
> > To be clear, our offer is a "Rackspace Certified" training program for
> > OpenStack, not "OpenStack certified" for OpenStack. We are putting
> > our brand behind the training, not representing the brand of the
> > project itself.
>
> seems pretty "fair dinkum" to me :)
>

I did acknowledge that it may be a mistake, and if it is a mistake, then why isn't being corrected?

> The term "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" makes it quite clear that
> it's not a certification endorsed by the Foundation. The Foundation should encourage
> such programs as part of growing the ecosystem.
>

I'm all for Rackspace doing training, of course it's good for OpenStack, but they need to leave the Certified right out of it.

It just isn't clear. What would be clear is "Rackspace Certified Technician for Rackspace Private Cloud" or whatever their specific product is, or "Rackspace Training for OpenStack".

I note that Red Hat certifications are not described as "Red Hat Certified Training for Linux". Without exception they are listed as for "Red Hat Enterprise Linux", a clearly defined product of Red Hat.

If we have a bunch of companies offering "Certified Training for OpenStack" it'll soon mean nothing and be impossible for anyone to gauge what the hell OpenStack training is. What sort of disreputable shonks will soon offer "Certified Training for OpenStack" if the Foundation does not completely protect brand OpenStack.

> While a training course offered directly by the Foundation sounds like a good idea, I
> struggle to see how it would be useful without focusing on a specific OpenStack
> distribution and, if it did that, it would mean the Foundation being seen as endorsing
> a specific distribution.
>

I'm not suggesting a course offered by the Foundation, that would be impractical. I'm suggesting if anyone wants to do "Certified OpenStack" or cleverly worded variants including "Certified" and "OpenStack", then that certification should meet some sort of OpenStack community standard not unlike that is expected of core project software, and the Foundation should be the only entity to have the right to sign off that a course is actually "OpenStack" and "Certified".

Cheers
Tristan

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

mordred at inaugust

Oct 11, 2012, 7:17 AM

Post #5 of 12 (2233 views)

Permalink

On 10/11/2012 03:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
>
> Thanks for raising this openly. That's very healthy IMHO
>
> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 08:42 +1100, Tristan Goode wrote:
>> Dear Foundation Members,
>>
>> I believe a key role of the Foundation is to protect the brand that is
>> OpenStack.
>>
>> After raising the issue with Rackspace and Jonathan Bryce several days
>> ago, yesterday I sought my fellow Foundation Board members opinion on
>> Rackspace's use of the word "certified" in media releases 6 days ago,
> ...
>
> It took me a little bit of digging to find out what exactly you were
> referring to, so for others reference it was the RAX "Launch Your Career
> Into The Clouds" email sent out to summit attendees which said:
>
> "learn how you can accelerate your career by becoming one of the first
> Certified OpenStack technicians. OpenStack public training classes
> are now posted at www.rackspacetraining.com."
>
> The "Certified OpenStack Technician" brand should definitely be
> something that the Foundation should seek to control. IMHO, it would
> only be appropriate for training course run by the Foundation itself or
> a Foundation contractor.
>
> However, the response you got:
>
>> From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
> ..
>> Tristan,
>>
>> The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
>> not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
>> aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
>>
>> To be clear, our offer is a "Rackspace Certified" training program for
>> OpenStack, not "OpenStack certified" for OpenStack. We are putting
>> our brand behind the training, not representing the brand of the
>> project itself.
>
> seems pretty "fair dinkum" to me :)

I agree.

> The term "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" makes it quite
> clear that it's not a certification endorsed by the Foundation. The
> Foundation should encourage such programs as part of growing the
> ecosystem.

Yah. I think that's perfectly fair. My main question at this point is
whether there needs to be a public clarification from Rackspace (or if
this email counts) in terms of our requirements around positive defense
of trademark usage. I'm clearly not a lawyer, and I also don't think
there was any negative intent here - but trademark law is weird.

> While a training course offered directly by the Foundation sounds like a
> good idea, I struggle to see how it would be useful without focusing on
> a specific OpenStack distribution and, if it did that, it would mean the
> Foundation being seen as endorsing a specific distribution.

I'm not sure I think that the foundation needs to be in the business of
offering training classes, possibly for exactly that reason. However, I
could see the foundation being in the business of certifying training
that is given by other parties. That way Rackspace really could do an
"OpenStack Certified" thing if they wanted to. Of course, the devil is
in the details and it's possible that such a foundation certification
would not be of value to our providers over and above their ability to
offer things such as "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" - so
I don't think we need to rush in to anything on that point.

My only concern at this point is just checking in that there are not any
actions that need to be taken related to trademark usage in that email.

Thanks!
Monty

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

joshua at pistoncloud

Oct 11, 2012, 10:21 AM

Post #6 of 12 (2216 views)

Permalink

Totally agree with both Mark and Tristan's concerns, and a final nuance
relating to current trademark guidelines:

The current OpenStack trademark policy requires the term "OpenStack" to
be applied only to products that include *all* of the core OpenStack
projects at that particular revision - thus, training that's described
as "for OpenStack" should, at the very least, cover Nova, Swift, and
Glance. My concern is that if Rackspace Alamo is being used as the basis
for such training (total speculation, I realize), then this should be
characterized as "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack Compute".
I believe there's also a requirement to specify the *version* of
OpenStack that such training would apply to - since I note that there's
no Quantum, and limited Keystone, functionality in the curriculum.

While Rackspace's intended use is (AFAIK) within the bounds of fair use
under trademark law, we might expect better efforts to protect the value
of the brand from the members of the Foundation. In fact, we probably
*can* expect such efforts under the member agreement.

Alan, will you put this on the agenda for Monday, please?

--
Joshua McKenty, CEO
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
w: (650) 24-CLOUD
m: (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
On 11 Oct 2012, at 7:17, Monty Taylor wrote:

> On 10/11/2012 03:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Hi Tristan,
>>
>> Thanks for raising this openly. That's very healthy IMHO
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 08:42 +1100, Tristan Goode wrote:
>>> Dear Foundation Members,
>>>
>>> I believe a key role of the Foundation is to protect the brand that
>>> is
>>> OpenStack.
>>>
>>> After raising the issue with Rackspace and Jonathan Bryce several
>>> days
>>> ago, yesterday I sought my fellow Foundation Board members opinion
>>> on
>>> Rackspace's use of the word "certified" in media releases 6 days
>>> ago,
>> ...
>>
>> It took me a little bit of digging to find out what exactly you were
>> referring to, so for others reference it was the RAX "Launch Your
>> Career
>> Into The Clouds" email sent out to summit attendees which said:
>>
>> "learn how you can accelerate your career by becoming one of the
>> first
>> Certified OpenStack technicians. OpenStack public training classes
>> are now posted at www.rackspacetraining.com."
>>
>> The "Certified OpenStack Technician" brand should definitely be
>> something that the Foundation should seek to control. IMHO, it would
>> only be appropriate for training course run by the Foundation itself
>> or
>> a Foundation contractor.
>>
>> However, the response you got:
>>
>>> From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
>> ..
>>> Tristan,
>>>
>>> The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
>>> not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
>>> aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
>>>
>>> To be clear, our offer is a "Rackspace Certified" training program
>>> for
>>> OpenStack, not "OpenStack certified" for OpenStack. We are putting
>>> our brand behind the training, not representing the brand of the
>>> project itself.
>>
>> seems pretty "fair dinkum" to me :)
>
> I agree.
>
>> The term "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" makes it
>> quite
>> clear that it's not a certification endorsed by the Foundation. The
>> Foundation should encourage such programs as part of growing the
>> ecosystem.
>
> Yah. I think that's perfectly fair. My main question at this point is
> whether there needs to be a public clarification from Rackspace (or if
> this email counts) in terms of our requirements around positive
> defense
> of trademark usage. I'm clearly not a lawyer, and I also don't think
> there was any negative intent here - but trademark law is weird.
>
>> While a training course offered directly by the Foundation sounds
>> like a
>> good idea, I struggle to see how it would be useful without focusing
>> on
>> a specific OpenStack distribution and, if it did that, it would mean
>> the
>> Foundation being seen as endorsing a specific distribution.
>
> I'm not sure I think that the foundation needs to be in the business
> of
> offering training classes, possibly for exactly that reason. However,
> I
> could see the foundation being in the business of certifying training
> that is given by other parties. That way Rackspace really could do an
> "OpenStack Certified" thing if they wanted to. Of course, the devil is
> in the details and it's possible that such a foundation certification
> would not be of value to our providers over and above their ability to
> offer things such as "Rackspace Certified Technician for OpenStack" -
> so
> I don't think we need to rush in to anything on that point.
>
> My only concern at this point is just checking in that there are not
> any
> actions that need to be taken related to trademark usage in that
> email.
>
> Thanks!
> Monty
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

tristan at aptira

Oct 11, 2012, 3:03 PM

Post #7 of 12 (2209 views)

Permalink

Jim,

> > > From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
> > ..
> > > Tristan,
> > >
> > > The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
> > > not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
> > > aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
> > >

The limited viewing audience of the Foundation mailing list and the Board mailing list doesn't let the actual recipients of the mail out know that this was a mistake. Could I please request that all the original recipients of the email be advised.

Cheers
Tristan

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

aclark at suse

Oct 11, 2012, 3:15 PM

Post #8 of 12 (2205 views)

Permalink

>>> On 10/11/2012 at 04:03 PM, Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
>> > > From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
>> > ..
>> > > Tristan,
>> > >
>> > > The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
>> > > not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
>> > > aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
>> > >
>
> The limited viewing audience of the Foundation mailing list and the Board
> mailing list doesn't let the actual recipients of the mail out know that this
> was a mistake. Could I please request that all the original recipients of the
> email be advised.
>
> Cheers
> Tristan

While there are many details that have come up during this current email thread, I feel that it is important to remind everyone that the OpenStack Foundation has a trademark policy[1] and procedure[1]. The policy sets out the rules for proper use of the OpenStack marks in word and logo form. The procedure is in place to govern and enforce the rules for those marks. The objective of the policy is to ensure that the OpenStack marks remain reliable indicators of source and quality and that they are protected from inappropriate and unauthorized use. The policy goes through great detail to demonstrate what is and isn't authorized and/or proper use of the marks.

The policy also spells out what a person should do if a person has questions or wishes to report misuse of the OpenStack marks. "If you wish to obtain our permission for any uses above or for any other use which is not specifically addressed in this Trademark Policy or you became aware of unauthorized use of the OpenStack Marks, please contact us by email at logo@openstack.org..."[1]

Please use this as the mechanism to report uses of the marks which you feel are in question. Through this mechanism the proper people will be informed up front and will then be able to judiciously investigate the questioned use and subsequent actions. Using such mechanisms ensure the proper enforcement of our marks while allowing the community to productively focus on and/or evolve the standing trademark policy and procedures while avoiding community strife and ill will through an onslaught of opinions towards any one person(s) or companies.

regards,

AlanClark

[1] http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

mark at openstack

Oct 11, 2012, 3:45 PM

Post #9 of 12 (2264 views)

Permalink

Thanks Alan.

I was also thinking it would be a good time to point out the various places where you can learn more about the current policies and marketing programs.

This page has many helpful links: http://www.openstack.org/brand

The brand page outlines 5 specific marketing programs for commercial products, which are sometimes referred to as the "restricted use logo" programs, also pasted below. Although the programs have logos associated with them, they also govern the ways in which companies can use the wordmark ("OpenStack") as they market their products, including the rules around the naming of their product or service. Please note that these are summaries, not legal documents, so they are meant to convey the meaning of each program in laymans terms, but are not a substitute for a full review of the relevant legal agreements. This is one of the challenges of discussing a complex legal topic over a mailing list, but I think it's still useful for us non-lawyers to start with the summaries:

From the website:
--
For Commercial Products:

"Powered By OpenStack"
If you have a service offering that uses formally released OpenStack Compute (Nova) code in your application or product, you may be eligible for the "Powered by OpenStack" marketing program, which includes a specific commercial-use logo and wordmark treatment for your product name. See the logo guidelines at the the above link, and contact logo@openstack.org for more details. A signed contract is required.

"Storage Powered By OpenStack"
If you have a service offering that uses formally released OpenStack Object Storage (Swift) code in your application or product, you may be eligible for the "Storage Powered by OpenStack" marketing program, which includes a specific commercial-use logo and wordmark treatment for your product name. See the logo guidelines at the above link, and contact logo@openstack.org for more details. A signed contract is required.

"Built For OpenStack"
If you are creating hardware, applications or services that integrate with or support OpenStack technology, but do not actually incorporate OpenStack technology, you may be eligible for the "Built for OpenStack" marketing program, which includes a specific commercial-use logo and wordmark treatment for your product name. See the logo guidelines at the above link, and contact logo@openstack.org for more details. A signed contract is required.

"OpenStack Distribution"
This program is designed for Software Distributions based on OpenStack, which include, at a minimum, the Compute (Nova) and Object Storage (Swift) software from one of the two most recent versions at time of commercial launch, expose the OpenStack API, and are distributed as installable software (e.g. USB, download, etc). Companies who are part of the program may use the OpenStack Distribution logo and may also use the OpenStack wordmark in their product name, such as "ACME OpenStack". To determine if you qualify for the program, contact logo@openstack.org. A signed contract is required.

"OpenStack Cloud"
This program is for public Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) clouds which utilize the OpenStack software (including, at a minimum, the Compute (Nova) and Object Storage (Swift) software), expose the OpenStack API, are running one of the two most recent versions. Companies who are part of the program may use the OpenStack Cloud logo and may also use the OpenStack wordmark in their service name, such as "ACME OpenStack Cloud". To determine if you qualify for the program, contact logo@openstack.org. A signed contract is required.

--

The "Built for OpenStack" program is in some ways the broadest, as it is for products and services that work with OpenStack, as opposed to products or services that actually run or distribute the OpenStack code. For example, professional services, including training, fall under the "Built for OpenStack" marketing program. Using "ACME" as an example company name, "ACME Training for OpenStack" is something you could see in the marketplace under this program.

The last two, "OpenStack Distribution" and "OpenStack Cloud" are relatively new. They are the first programs that allow a company to use "OpenStack" in the product name without a modifer such as "Powered by" or "for", and thus have the most stringent requirements, including the requirement to include Nova & Swift from one of the two most recent releases, and to expose the OpenStack APIs.

Note that for all programs, a signed contract is required, which means that this "ACME" company would need to contact the Foundation (logo@openstack.org) and discuss their programs before such an agreement were executed.

So, that's the status right now. It sounds like several of you have ideas about how to evolve these programs, or have ideas for new programs, which is great, but obviously we need to carefully consider the impact of any changes to the market, users and companies who are currently using the restricted logos. Whether or not the Foundation will have a training/certification program, and how that will take shape, is a separate but important topic.

--
Personal Opinion:

I think we could better address the growing ecosystem of companies who are offering professional services for OpenStack, including Training and Certification. As always, we need to balance the duty to protect the brand with the opportunity to leverage the combined reach of such a thriving ecosystem. But I think it's clear that the current "Built for OpenStack" is not a perfect fit for service businesses. The name itself doesn't exactly say "professional services."

Many ideas have already been shared on the mailing list specific to Certification, and I think it will be a good topic for Monday's board meeting, in the context of Training and perhaps professional services as a whole.

Trademark issues are not simple, and thus won't be solved overnight, but in the grand scheme of things I am very happy that there is so much demand for OpenStack knowledge, and that we have the strongest open cloud ecoystem on the planet looking to meet it. As a newly formed Foundation with the responsibiltiy to protect, empower, and promote OpenStack, I'm confident that if we make this a priority we can ensure any new program ultimately strikes the right balance.

Mark Collier

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:15pm, "Alan Clark" <aclark@suse.com> said:

>
>
>>>> On 10/11/2012 at 04:03 PM, Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com> wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>>> > > From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
>>> > ..
>>> > > Tristan,
>>> > >
>>> > > The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
>>> > > not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
>>> > > aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
>>> > >
>>
>> The limited viewing audience of the Foundation mailing list and the Board
>> mailing list doesn't let the actual recipients of the mail out know that this
>> was a mistake. Could I please request that all the original recipients of the
>> email be advised.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tristan
>
>
> While there are many details that have come up during this current email thread, I
> feel that it is important to remind everyone that the OpenStack Foundation has a
> trademark policy[1] and procedure[1]. The policy sets out the rules for proper
> use of the OpenStack marks in word and logo form. The procedure is in place to
> govern and enforce the rules for those marks. The objective of the policy is to
> ensure that the OpenStack marks remain reliable indicators of source and quality
> and that they are protected from inappropriate and unauthorized use. The policy
> goes through great detail to demonstrate what is and isn't authorized and/or
> proper use of the marks.
>
> The policy also spells out what a person should do if a person has questions or
> wishes to report misuse of the OpenStack marks. "If you wish to obtain our
> permission for any uses above or for any other use which is not specifically
> addressed in this Trademark Policy or you became aware of unauthorized use of the
> OpenStack Marks, please contact us by email at logo@openstack.org..."[1]
>
> Please use this as the mechanism to report uses of the marks which you feel are in
> question. Through this mechanism the proper people will be informed up front and
> will then be able to judiciously investigate the questioned use and subsequent
> actions. Using such mechanisms ensure the proper enforcement of our marks while
> allowing the community to productively focus on and/or evolve the standing
> trademark policy and procedures while avoiding community strife and ill will
> through an onslaught of opinions towards any one person(s) or companies.
>
> regards,
>
> AlanClark
>
> [1] http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

jonathan at openstack

Oct 11, 2012, 5:25 PM

Post #10 of 12 (2203 views)

Permalink

We sent notice to Rackspace when we saw the incorrect usage in the promotional email. They said the language in the email was a mistake and are taking action by educating their marketing teams and public speakers to use the OpenStack wordmark in accordance with the policies. Our standard process is to notify companies and then give them a remedy period to correct their usage. If violations continue, then a company risks losing its right to use the marks and ultimately may face legal action. I know several of you are familiar with this process as you've received similar communications from us.

We handle a fairly high number of these, but since this one has generated public discussion, I just wanted to confirm that we have been following our standard procedure to ensure trademark compliance. Let me know if you have any questions,

Jonathan
210-317-2438

On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Alan Clark wrote:

>
>
>>>> On 10/11/2012 at 04:03 PM, Tristan Goode <tristan@aptira.com> wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>>>>> From: Jim Curry [mailto:jim.curry@rackspace.com]
>>>> ..
>>>>> Tristan,
>>>>>
>>>>> The email was an unfortunate mistake by our marketing team. It does
>>>>> not represent the official branding or positioning of our offer. We
>>>>> aren't perfect, and for any confusion that created I apologize.
>>>>>
>>
>> The limited viewing audience of the Foundation mailing list and the Board
>> mailing list doesn't let the actual recipients of the mail out know that this
>> was a mistake. Could I please request that all the original recipients of the
>> email be advised.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tristan
>
>
> While there are many details that have come up during this current email thread, I feel that it is important to remind everyone that the OpenStack Foundation has a trademark policy[1] and procedure[1]. The policy sets out the rules for proper use of the OpenStack marks in word and logo form. The procedure is in place to govern and enforce the rules for those marks. The objective of the policy is to ensure that the OpenStack marks remain reliable indicators of source and quality and that they are protected from inappropriate and unauthorized use. The policy goes through great detail to demonstrate what is and isn't authorized and/or proper use of the marks.
>
> The policy also spells out what a person should do if a person has questions or wishes to report misuse of the OpenStack marks. "If you wish to obtain our permission for any uses above or for any other use which is not specifically addressed in this Trademark Policy or you became aware of unauthorized use of the OpenStack Marks, please contact us by email at logo@openstack.org..."[1]
>
> Please use this as the mechanism to report uses of the marks which you feel are in question. Through this mechanism the proper people will be informed up front and will then be able to judiciously investigate the questioned use and subsequent actions. Using such mechanisms ensure the proper enforcement of our marks while allowing the community to productively focus on and/or evolve the standing trademark policy and procedures while avoiding community strife and ill will through an onslaught of opinions towards any one person(s) or companies.
>
> regards,
>
> AlanClark
>
> [1] http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

markmc at redhat

Oct 12, 2012, 12:47 AM

Post #11 of 12 (2199 views)

Permalink

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 16:15 -0600, Alan Clark wrote:
> Using such mechanisms ensure the proper enforcement of our marks while
> allowing the community to productively focus on and/or evolve the
> standing trademark policy and procedures while avoiding community
> strife and ill will through an onslaught of opinions towards any one
> person(s) or companies.

That there is a mechanism in place does not mean that some we should
discourage open debate amongst Foundation members about how we like to
see our brand used and promoted.

I don't see this thread as "community strife and ill will" or "an
onslaught of opinions". I think most of the opinions offered were
actually totally reasonable and measured.

Sure, the initial tone Tristan used may have been a little over the top
and there wasn't enough assumption of good intent, but let's put that
down to folks being passionate about OpenStack.

Put it another way - individual directors are elected to serve the
individual members. This mailing list is a great way (and maybe the only
way) for individual directors to get input from the members they
represent.

Cheers,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation Board] Use of the word "certified" and protecting brand OpenStack [ In reply to ]

lloydostack at gmail

Oct 12, 2012, 9:36 AM

Post #12 of 12 (2205 views)

Permalink

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 16:15 -0600, Alan Clark wrote:
> > Using such mechanisms ensure the proper enforcement of our marks while
> > allowing the community to productively focus on and/or evolve the
> > standing trademark policy and procedures while avoiding community
> > strife and ill will through an onslaught of opinions towards any one
> > person(s) or companies.
>
> That there is a mechanism in place does not mean that some we should
> discourage open debate amongst Foundation members about how we like to
> see our brand used and promoted.
>
> I don't see this thread as "community strife and ill will" or "an
> onslaught of opinions". I think most of the opinions offered were
> actually totally reasonable and measured.
>
> Sure, the initial tone Tristan used may have been a little over the top
> and there wasn't enough assumption of good intent, but let's put that
> down to folks being passionate about OpenStack.
>
> Put it another way - individual directors are elected to serve the
> individual members. This mailing list is a great way (and maybe the only
> way) for individual directors to get input from the members they
> represent.
>

Agreed all around.

In fairness to Tristen, Rackspace is uniquely positioned to spark
collaboration on curriculum and certification -- huge opportunity to
correct course on. Also, Rackspace has had at least three (high profile)
accidents related to (their own) published OpenStack Trademark Guidelines
in the last year.

Best regards,
Lloyd
--
@lloyddewolf
http://www.pistoncloud.com/

Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

Attached Files: