Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (325 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] Project name and logo discussion
On 2019-06-11T14:24:09, Richard Brown <RBrownCCB@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


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

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

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 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 ...


Architect SDS, Distinguished Engineer
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah, HRB 21284 (AG
"Architects should open possibilities and not determine everything." (Ueli
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
Follow Ups