Jenkins Operator managed service name (sublicensing)

[Paweł Dolega]

Hi Jenkinsci Board

We are the authors of OSS https://github.com/jenkinsci/kubernetes-operator project. 

We started building commercial managed offering based on this project - managed version available in Azure marketplace. Given that the project is commercial offering built on top of OSS Jenkins Operator we wanted to name it Jenkins Operator Service (which we thought describes pretty well what it is, managed service for OSS project). 

Our initial draft of the offering is here: https://jenkins-operator.com/ (currently private preview).

Given trademark guidelines here: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ it seems however that it might be worth to reconsider the suggested name and change it to something like: Kubernetes Operator Service for Jenkins 

Is there any way we could apply for sublicensing for using the "Jenkins" word within our product offering naming? If so, what would we need to do to apply? 

[Oleg Nenashev]

Hi Pawel, 

Thanks for the follow-up and for looking for an alternative name. I have added the trademark usage request review/approval to the Dec 02 Governance Meeting agenda. Let's see whether we can reach a consensus in the email list ahead of the meeting.

One challenge for the naming is that the suggested name (Kubernetes Operator Service for Jenkins) uses not only the Jenkins trademark, but also "Kubernetes" which is also the Linux Foundation trademark subject to the same trademark usage rules. It is less of a concern for the Jenkins community, but please keep in mind that our approval, if granted, will address only the "Jenkins" trademark usage. The "Kubernetes" trademark usage is not something we can approve or reject, it is a subject for a separate discussion with the trademark owner.

Best regards,

Oleg Nenashev

[Paweł Dolega]

You are right. In case of this name we would need to pursue the approval from Kubernetes organization. 

If possible I think ideal name (from our perspective) would be Jenkins Operator Service. I think we could try to agree on some commitment from our side when it comes to making sure Jenkins & Kubernetes is a great match and is being well maintained (but that's obviously something that would need to be further discuss, if even viable from your side). Totally understand if this is not possible though. 

[Oleg Nenashev]

Hi Pawel,

TBH I am not sure "Jenkins Operator Service" would be approved, it is too generic. I would definitely hesitate voting for it. There is no precedent of such name being approved before for product names, only for community-focused events and : https://www.jenkins.io/project/trademark/approved-usage/ . Before the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines were adopted, the product names commonly had the "COMPANY_NAME Jenkins Something" or the "Jenkins Something by COMPANY_NAME" naming pattern. It's probably something you could consider.

Feedback/suggestions from others would be appreciated.

P.S: As we discussed a few months ago, product naming on public cloud marketplaces is a mess at the moment: https://azuremarketplace.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/apps?page=1&search=jenkins . So we still need to maintain a balance in trademark sublicense reviews so that good faith requests do not create disadvantages compared to vendors who do not submit trademark sublicense requests. Maybe a listing of commercial offerings on our site could help with that (similar to https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Commercial+Support which still needs to be moved to jenkins.io)

BR, Oleg

[Richard Bywater]

I agree that I think use of a company name within the title is appropriate if it's not part of a base Jenkins community offering. e.g. Jenkins Operator Service might be ok for an official Jenkins community offering of an Operator Service but not for an offering by a particular company.

Regarding the Azure Marketplace, is it worth starting to look at someone (guessing it would be the Governance Board?) starting to try and contact the vendors who are supplying the marketplace items to alert them that the names should really be changed (and then starting to look to enforce it later down the track)?

Richard.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/1a843791-216c-4e15-8f3f-2da0bc680743n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paweł Dolega]

Your suggestions are very reasonable. I think VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service might be a good name we could use.

[Oleg Nenashev]

>  Your suggestions are very reasonable. I think VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service might be a good name we could use.  

Following the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines remains the preference IMO, e.g.  "VirtusLab Operator Service for Jenkins". Would it work for you? 

The suggested VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service name technically may be approved by the Jenkins Governance Meeting, but it rather for exceptional cases in our current policy. Would be great to get feedback from others ahead of the meeting. 

> Regarding the Azure Marketplace, is it worth starting to look at someone (guessing it would be the Governance Board?) starting to try and contact the vendors who are supplying the marketplace items to alert them that the names should really be changed (and then starting to look to enforce it later down the track)?

[Paweł Dolega]

Hi Oleg 

Not sure if this was already discussed. Of course if it is possible we would definitely prefer VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service as it clearly indicates intent (it is Jenkins Operator - delivered as service; given it is based on Jenkins Operator OSS project). However I do understand we could only ask for charitable interpretation here.

Is there anything we could do to be counted as exceptional case?

[Oleg Nenashev]

Hi Pawel,    

We had a conversation at the Jenkins Governance meeting last week, and the consensus was that we are not ready to vote. Our consensus was that "VirtusLab Operator Service for Jenkins" or similar names represent a pretty much automatic approval while VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service needs voting. I do not think there is an exceptional case, IMHO we should stick to the process. It is a +[1...-1] vote from the community members, with absolute majority vote in the mailing list and at the next governance meeting.

Given your explicit preference for "VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service" , I think we should start the voting with target of concluding it next week. Fine with you?

Best regards,

Oleg Nenashev

[Paweł Dolega]

Definitely fine with us!

Once again, thank you for your engagement with this one. 

[Oleg Nenashev]

After some consideration, I have decided to cast my "0" vote ahead of the tomorrow's meeting at 6PM UTC. I do not feel too strongly to vote against the new name, but at the same time I do not see evidence which would support an exception. It was me pushing for LF trademark guidelines adoption at the end of the day. I am happy to support the approval if the community votes for that though.

More feedback from other contributors would be much appreciated!

BR, Oleg

[Gavin Mogan]

As I'm missing tomorrow's meeting, Oleg echos my own feeling. No strong objections but no real evidence other than "we would like it"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/46fcd216-556e-470e-a176-06ee092eb177n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Waite]

I'm +1 for accepting the name " VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service" as a valid exception to the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines because it matches the patterns we've used in the past.  We're in a transition period as we move towards using the Linux Foundation trademark guidelines and I think this proposed name is reasonable.

I'm not a member of the board, just voicing my opinion by my vote.

[Daniel Beck]

> On 15. Dec 2020, at 22:18, Oleg Nenashev <o.v.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It was me pushing for LF trademark guidelines adoption at the end of the day.

Oleg, could you summarize the current situation of this?

My vote basically hinges on whether we've done this and we'd be granting an exception; or whether it's basically still 2016-2018 as far as our trademark rules are concerned.

I checked the site and it seems to contradict what you're writing as I understand it, so I'm asking here.

[Oleg Nenashev]

Our public doc is still behind the actual state, my bad. Will make sure to file a PR tomorrow on the morning. At the Oct 14 governance meeting we agreed that:

* We adopt Linux Foundation pre-approved trademark patterns and usage guidelines

* We are not applying requirements retrospectively, everything remains approved

* Until the transition to CDF is over, we may make exceptions in the naming policy. Example: precedent in already approved trademarks

The third bullet is where we reserve some freedom at the cost of ambiguity. Maybe we need stricter examples. Just forcing the LF guidelines is also the option

BR, Oleg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/JlQlL4G7jME/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/D24392E1-F8C2-4585-81DB-90D262BA5FD8%40beckweb.net.

[Daniel Beck]

> On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:06, Oleg Nenashev <o.v.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our public doc is still behind the actual state, my bad. Will make sure to file a PR tomorrow on the morning. At the Oct 14 governance meeting we agreed that:
>
> * We adopt Linux Foundation pre-approved trademark patterns and usage guidelines
> * We are not applying requirements retrospectively, everything remains approved
> * Until the transition to CDF is over, we may make exceptions in the naming policy. Example: precedent in already approved trademarks
>
> The third bullet is where we reserve some freedom at the cost of ambiguity. Maybe we need stricter examples. Just forcing the LF guidelines is also the option
>

Thanks Oleg!

I read the meeting notes and saw your PR, thanks for that as well.

As far as I can tell, the last time we approved a name following the old pattern was several years ago, before we started moving to CDF. I think it's best to start with a clean slate, so I'm -1 on the trademark usage request with exceptional pattern for now. The name should instead follow the LF guidelines we decided to use.

(And FWIW I do not consider us continuing to allow previously approved trademark usages under a different ruleset to be precedent for allowing new ones; if it was, why even bother adopting the new guidelines?)

[Oleg Nenashev]

Dear Pawel,

We have voted at the today's governance meeting, and there was no majority to support the "VirtusLab Jenkins Operator Service" request (one +1 vote, two 0, and three -1s). The main reasoning behind the voting results is the trademark usage policy we adopted. We suggest to proceed with "VirtusLab Operator Service for Jenkins" name or a similar one.

P.S: Taking the voting results, I think it would be fair to strictly follow the Linux Foundation guidelines going forward. As Daniel pointed out, "exceptional cases" create venue for interpretation and confusion when not strictly documented. It is not good for any side.

Best regards,

Oleg Nenashev