[ClusterLabs Developers] OCF under the Linux Foundation?

Ken Gaillot kgaillot at redhat.com
Mon Aug 15 12:34:38 EDT 2016

I got a response from the Linux Foundation regarding the OCF name. They
are willing to host a working group if we want a neutral home for it. He
didn't explicitly address the question, but I believe the LF would have
no objections to ClusterLabs taking over the OCF name if we don't want
to go that route.

I've attached the sample charter he mentioned in case anyone wants to
see it. We wouldn't have to set up identically but it's a reference point.

I think the naming conflicts he mentions are not serious, because (1)
our usage predates either of those, and (2) there are even more existing
computer-related uses of the OCF acronym (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCF ... Open Computing Facility,
OpenBSD/FreeBSD Cryptographic Framework, OpenCard Framework, Original
Composite Font).

How does everyone feel about this? Should we host the OCF standards
under the Linux Foundation, for greater reach and authority, and clear
neutrality? Or should we bring it under ClusterLabs, to keep everything
as simple as possible (and perhaps emphasize support for OSes beyond Linux)?

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Open Cluster Framework
Date: 	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:12:46 -0400
From: 	Michael Dolan <mdolan at linuxfoundation.org>
To: 	kgaillot at redhat.com
CC: 	Mike Woster <mwoster at linuxfoundation.org>

Hi Ken, is this something you would prefer to have at the LF? We could
setup a lightweight governance model and let the community drive all the
decisions under a working group model under the LF. We just announced a
similar structure for Open vSwitch and would be amenable to hosting this
similarly. I'm pasting the governance documents here so you can see what
that looked like. They didn't want any membership levels or fees so it's
just a technical collaboration effort and very lightweight. However
giving it a home at the LF allowed them to neutralize any arguments the
project was under the control of any one company. They assigned the
domain and trademark rights to the LF to make it neutral.

I will point out there are a few "OCF" standards out there now that are
already in naming conflict. First there was the "Open Container Format"
or "OCF Certified" by the Open Container Initiative we host. They
already filed for a registered trademark. They standardized the Docker
container format for broader industry use.

The other is the Open Connectivity Foundation which is a standards body.
That one is not directly affiliated with the LF, but we host the
IoTivity open source project they sponsor so we're aware of their
activities. They have an OCF brand I believe they were planning to use
for IoT devices that implement their specification standard.

I'd be happy to jump on a call if it would be easier to discuss live.


Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan at linuxfoundation.org <mailto:mdolan at linuxfoundation.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Open vSwitch Charter 2016-04-22.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 94815 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160815/2c26855f/attachment-0002.pdf>

More information about the Developers mailing list