On 2019-06-11T14:24:09, Richard Brown <RBrownCCB@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hopefully you can understand that there is no way I will ever share the past examples of sponsorships, service arrangements, or other contracts that have already fallen apart due to the current "SUSE is not openSUSE" discrepancy, which will be no different if we have a "FOOFoundation is not openSUSE" discrepancy.
Looking at the implications of IP laws regarding copyrights, word marks, logos etc (as we're building up the Ceph Foundation's policy), and having seen some of that in the past, and even seeing how some FLOSS projects (try to) use the mark to monetize their projects etc, I'm not entirely ignorant of the challenges even if not well acquainted with the specific cases. Still. I believe *both* SUSE *and* openSUSE benefit from this relationship, and its visibility. Personally, as an employee (which make up a fair share of the openSUSE contributors, even if clearly not all and perhaps not even the majority!), it fills me with pride to be running "my" Open Source distribution. I'd be personally and emotionally dismayed if that were to change. Rebuilding the openSUSE brand would be costly for openSUSE. Very much so. Name changes confuse people. For a long, long time. openSUSE would lose the (hopefully positive) impact of "SUSE" on our perception. SUSE would lose significant community visibility. In short, my position can be summarized as "*anything* but a name change". If there are issues that you really believe are more significant than the certain huge negative impact, these need addressing, sure.
But we cant really do more than talk about it at a high level and ask you all to trust us..as the alternative would involve throwing sympathetic organisations who wanted to work closer with openSUSE under a bus by naming and shaming them.
I do trust you that this problem exists. I cannot, without knowing more details, agree that I believe the cost/benefit analysis would support changing the name. Because, even if what you experienced was certainly real, all those events happened anyway. Yes, as long as the marks are shared/derivative, guidelines must exist and be enforced. Not even because SUSE wants to, but because marks need to be protected lest they dilute and eventually no longer can stand. Even if the openSUSE-foundation-that-isn't-called-openSUSE-foundation had its very own marks, you'd have to do so and establish guidelines. e.g., not everyone could call their event "FOODistro Summit" without your approval either. Perhaps the real discussion is around the sub-licensing terms for the derivative marks. I understand those can't happen out entirely in the open for legal/contractual reasons, but are you truly saying that SUSE and openSUSE have not been able to work out a sufficiently flexible and light-weight (as far as it can be) agreement that meets your needs? Because then, as I'm trying to look into something similar-ish, I'd really like some internal pointers so we can bring this up when the Ceph Foundation shapes the Ceph marks guidelines ... Regards, Lars -- Architect SDS, Distinguished Engineer SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) "Architects should open possibilities and not determine everything." (Ueli Zbinden) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org