> acts as a mediator, so any decision around trademark takes soo much time and effort because CNCF has to get the blessing of everyone or build something neutral (like the k8s certification)

Sorry, but that's the nature of standardisation, and the price you pay if you want to show you're really vendor-neutral. For me, actions like these make Istio go from the almost de-facto default choice for a service mesh, to suddenly wanting to consider other stuff.

> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that.

I don't really see how money would be an issue here? CNCF is a non-profit, Google is not.

> Sorry, but that's the nature of standardisation, and the price you pay if you want to show you're really vendor-neutral. For me, actions like these make Istio go from the almost de-facto default choice for a service mesh, to suddenly wanting to consider other stuff.

That's not what the Cloud industry is about, it's about speed and time to market.

> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that.

Valid point, i have no evidence to support this, i just feel like CNCF looks for any opportunity to monetise itself for reasons i don't understand (Certifications, Conferences...). For a non profit that doesn't hire the core developers of the tools they support (most are hire by tech companies) i don't see why kubecon should cost 1k$+

> That's not what the Cloud industry is about, it's about speed and time to market.

Not sure how that's even an argument? Istio already was the de-facto standard, it is already in the market right now. Nothing prevented them from submitting to the CNCF - even if the acceptance would have taken a while. This wouldn't have suddenly stopped adoption or development in any way? It would only have enforced the view that the project was committed to stay vendor-neutral. Now, at least in my eyes, they've shown exactly the opposite.

> For a non profit that doesn't hire the core developers

Not sure why an organization formed to allow multiple vendors to work together on the same tools and play neutral party there would need developers. That would make them a stakeholder, something you want to avoid. They do have staff though[1], which also costs a lot of money, and organizing events isn't free.

[1] https://www.cncf.io/people/staff/

"The problem with CNCF and why istio was not transferred to that org is that CNCF acts as a mediator, so any decision around trademark takes soo much time and effort because CNCF has to get the blessing of everyone or build something neutral (like the k8s certification), and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that."

This article paints a more accurate picture of the situation where Google broke its promises to its partners, you should ask them why they did that: https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/09/ibm_oracle_cncf_prote...

Also, I believe people have been asking Istio to develop a conformance program for years and moving it to CNCF which had a track record of building one of the most successful open source conformance programs seemed reasonable: https://github.com/cncf/k8s-conformance

If not CNCF, there are other fantastic open source foundations like the ASF, EF, OSI, SPI and so on that could have helped.

Thanks i will read that article.

No one from IBM is on the board because Google wants to control the project and apparently has no interest in governing it in conjunction with non-Google entities

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any source for this or is it just a guess? There are several other plausible explanations.

From the linked article:

> IBM continues to believe that the best way to manage key open source projects such as Istio is with true open governance, under the auspices of a reputable organization with a level playing field for all contributors, transparency for users, and vendor-neutral management of the license and trademarks.

Based on this comment it sounds like IBM is saying that Google's OUC is not a vendor-neutral manager of license and trademark. It's also suggesting that there won't be a level playing field or transparency.

Basically IBM just wants it managed by an independent un-biased entity. Which sounds fair, if the whole purpose of the thing is not profit for one org, but the profit of a community.

More evidence to my argument that it is impossible for a corporation to own and develop a true community-led solution. The corporation is a slave to its shareholders and profit margins, so the community's wishes will never take priority.

Is the blog post itself not all the evidence required? IBM was a major partner in Istio and has been left out in the cold.

K8s was transferred to CNCF a.o. Why is this different? Or is this a reaction to issues with those transfers?

Loosing an opportunity to make business :)

> The problem with CNCF and why istio was not transferred to that org is that CNCF acts as a mediator, so any decision around trademark takes soo much time and effort because CNCF has to get the blessing of everyone or build something neutral (like the k8s certification), and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that.

This is a cynical point of view. At this point, Istio takes advantage of a number of IBM, Oracle, Lyft and Red Hat developers while not giving them any governance over it..?

Valid point, and that's the balance i think OUC is trying to bring, not being as un-flexible as CNCF and trying to be as open to the community as possible. Again OUC is about the trademark and not the licensing of the software which is what contributors and maintainers should care about in my opinion.

> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that.

Care to supply some evidences for such claim?

Right? How is CNCF 'making money' from K8s when it's a nonprofit that by law must spend 100% of the funds it raises on the project?

As i commented above i don't have any evidence supported by data, just an opinion, i don't understand why kubecon cost 1k$+ while as a speaker you have to pay your flight...

I know non-profit in the US has to fill public tax returns, i will be interested in figuring out how much execs earn at CNCF!

Not affiliated with Google or CNCF but I've noticed too that it is ran as a business and so are their meetups all over the world. They also have a gigantic staff for what they do and it's obvious at this point that they must be paying themselves very well. It is also very disappointing that their events are so expensive indeed for a non-profit given that they have such a huge amount of sponsors https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-no...

I run a conference myself and we manage to be 3 times cheaper with only 8 sponsors and we take care of travel and lodging for speakers. With the amount of sponsors they get, they could get away with $10 tickets like PyCon Europe which is free for all and still take care of travel and lodging for speakers. When Google gave Kubernetes for free to CNCF non profit, I don't think this is what they had in mind and may be why they went with OUC instead.

"With the amount of sponsors they get, they could get away with $10 tickets like PyCon Europe which is free for all and still take care of travel and lodging for speakers. When Google gave Kubernetes for free to CNCF non profit, I don't think this is what they had in mind and may be why they went with OUC instead."

It's very expensive to run 10,000 person events, we run the events as pretty much break even across different projects, some events make money, some loss money, it all balances out. We also produce transparency reports for our events: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2020/01/09/kubecon-cloudnativecon-n...

Also keep in mind that nothing is free, running VENDOR NEUTRAL events is a hard business, ORM laid off all its events team recently during the pandemic (https://www.businessinsider.com/oreilly-media-layoffs-events...), I'm proud to say we haven't laid anyone off.

So Apache is sort of like BSD+Patents, are there any licenses that are BSD + Patents + Trademarks?

Not to my knowledge, most OSS licenses leave out the trademark issue, happy to be proven wrong.

This is strange, doesn't that leave a big gap to be filled?