On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I don't have a big issue with the way the Foundation currently enforces > "you must use the code" - anyone who signs a trademark agreement with > the Foundation agrees to "include the entirety of" Nova's code. That's > very vague, but I assume the Foundation can terminate the agreement if > it thinks the other party is acting in bad faith. > > Basically, I'm concerned about us swinging from a rather lax "you must > include our code" rule to an overly strict "you must make no downstream > modifications to our code”. I tend to agree with you for the most part. As they exist today, the trademark licenses include a couple of components: legally agreeing to use the code in the projects specified (requires self certification from the licensee) and passing the approved test suite once it exists (which adds a component requiring external validation of behavior). By creating the test suite and selecting required capabilities that can be externally validated through the test suite, we would take a step in tightening up the usage and consistency enforceable by our existing legal framework. I think that "designated sections” could provide a useful construct for better general guidance on where the extension points to the codebase are. From a practical standpoint, it would probably be pretty difficult to efficiently audit an overly strict definition of the designated sections and this would still be a self certifying requirement on the licensee. Jonathan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
