Contributors mailing list archives


Re: Proposal for new repo - Clouder

Open Source Integrators, Daniel Reis
- 16/10/2016 12:00:50
Hi Yannick,

You email discusses several topics that need to be correctly addressed.

TL;DR: maybe the OCA repo should rather be named something like 
"OCA/infrastructure-cloud" or ""OCA/infrastructure-docker".

> I already suggested this move in the OCA on July, and it's so good to 
> see things moving now. Of course I am also volunteer for PSC.
Thank you for that, of course you will have a central position in the 

> Still there some things which need to be said. I don't want to take 
> anyone by surprise so please note that Clouder is the name of my 
> company and is a registered trademark. This should not cause any 
> worries, I don't mind making a public and definitive statement saying 
> that everyone especially the OCA can use the name, and in fact I even 
> ask that to respect the work which has been done you keep the name 
> Clouder for the repo this would be very important for me.
> Then, note that we will continue to act as the editor of Clouder, and 
> base our communication around that. This is just our business strategy.
We're all in goodwill, but this can be an issue that is best solved 
right at the start.
The "Clouder" brand is an intellectual property of your Company, and is 
not covered by the CLA you sign with the OCA. If you sell your company, 
the OCA can be requested to remove any reference to the "Clouder" brand.
So I think it is wise to separate the technical project name from the 
brand name.
But it's fair to make a clear mention to the Cloder brand on the repo 
That's something easy to correct if the worse happens.

Having said that, maybe the OCA repo should rather be named something 
like "OCA/infrastructure-cloud" or ""OCA/infrastructure-docker" .

> Annnnd... That's all. I have some other concerns, like the fact that 
> if by any chance the OCA fall under evil, Oracle-like, hands Clouder 
> will be also in trouble as OCA will through the CLA have more power 
> than we have (This is a one-go ticket for us, there is no way back 
> since we'll not have a copyright copy of contributors like the OCA). 
> Or we can later have some disagreements regarding the leadership of 
> the project.
The OCA delegates election system was designed to avoid being taken over 
by hostile interests.
And relicensing by the OCA would only be allowed for OSI-approved licenses.
There is also the opposite scenario - for Clouder being taken over by 
some bigger player.
One of the benefits proposed the OCA to it's users is to protect them 
this kind of "upstream" changes.
In the end, you can see it also as a shield protecting your work - if 
your company gets acquired or closed down, you will still be able to use 
and continue developing your Clouder work under the protection of the OCA.

> But screw this. Call me a madman but giving Clouder, the two years of 
> hard work that it represent and all the future we have in mind, to the 
> OCA is a bet I am willing to take. I have faith in the OCA and the 
> open-source community, as everybody here, that faith and putting the 
> project under an umbrella trusted by everyone is far more important 
> that the fears I may have.
Thank you a million for that :-)