A new upstream project to break up Docker into independent components

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by alsadi on Thursday April 20, 2017 @01:56PM (#14159108)

Tell us more about trademark and branding guidelines. What do you allow a downstream implemented by others to be called without requiring trademark fees ex by parties similar to amazon (public cloud) or ovh (data center) or redhat/fedora (software vendor) and even nvidia (cuda docker-like) . For example fedora and firefox has strict trademark policy eventhough they are opensource.

Can I call my tool moby-something?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by shykes on Thursday April 20, 2017 @09:19PM (#14162351)

For the Docker trademark, we will adopt guidelines similar to other open-source products, such as Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

For Moby, there is no need for a strict trademark policy because Moby is a "meta-platform". In other words downstreams don't run Moby: they build their own specialized platform with moby. So they don't need to worry about the Moby trademark anymore than they need to worry about the trademark of gcc or make. Anyone who uses Moby to build their platform will be more than welcome to say "built with Moby".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by ibotty on Friday April 21, 2017 @03:39AM (#14163729)

That still does not answer whether it's possible to name a project "moby-foo" for, say, an integration of moby with foo.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new upstream project to break up Docker into independen... by shykes on Friday April 21, 2017 @08:35AM (#14164934)

Sure, I don't see why that would be a problem. As a rule of thumb, Moby should follow the usual conventions of community open-source projects.

[ Parent | on HN ]