Talk:Open Cloud Principles

From Open Cloud Initiative (OCI) Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] general comments

In order to stem the abuse of the term "Open Cloud" the community is forming a set of principles which should be met by any entity that wishes to use it, similar in spirit to the OSI's Open Source Definition for free software licenses.

Note that the OSI certifies which licenses meet the OSD. It is unclear throughout below what the equivalent "thing" is that "Open Could" is meant to operate on. And note that except by community pressure, the OSI can't prevent [ab]use of the term "open source".

No Barriers to Entry

Entry to what? A service agreement with a cloud vendor? If so, that's a case of confusing low price and freedom (or openness).[1]

No Barriers to Exit

This makes sense, assuming you're talking about a cloud vendor's service, as far as it goes. But data isn't the only obstacle to exit. Software is also a barrier. If the customer can't take the software with them as well as the data, they face serious barriers to exit.[2]

No Discrimination

Assuming this applies to a service offered by a cloud vendor, one should consider that it is quite a different type of "no discrimination" than is in the OSD. The OSD says that a license can't stiuplate restrictions against persons or groups, so software under an OSD-compliant license can be taken and used by anyone. A cloud vendor is in a much closer relationship with a customer. I don't have any immediate feelings on whether this principle belongs, just pointing out it isn't the same as the OSD one.

Interoperability

Fuzzy (who is to judge what an "appropriate standard" is?) and potentially harmful to innovation. Creating a new or better (for some niche) standard is not necessarily harmful to openness. What is important is that the standards used be open themselves (ie not patent uncumbered, open source reference implementations, documentation and specifications under open licenses, etc).

Licensing Freedom

This shouldn't be optional, but it should be much, much better defined. In particular source code, content, and data are different, and it should be clear that what needs to be free is what a cloud service provider conveys/provides to/for users, not what users do with their own software/code/data.

Technological Neutrality

What does "any license or agreement" mean? A service agreement? This seems related to entry above. Maybe it just needs to be better defined.

Transparency

Totally unclear what this is meant to apply to. Processes related to what? Governance of a cloud service provider? What does "community" mean?

Mike Linksvayer 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for this useful feedback. To clarify the OCP was created in the context of a group claiming to be open that essentially wasn't. It's an interesting question though as to what the subject is, because for cloud computing we are not confined to a software license (though licensing may be part of the solution). Incorporating your feedback now. SamJohnston 10:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know it was created in reaction to the OCM closed process. That's not a useful long term raison d'être. Hopefully the OCP will set a useful landmark on its own, and to do that the subject needs to be clarified. Your recent edits do improve the draft in the right direction. Mike Linksvayer 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing freedom

Rationale: Free licenses impose no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and produce modified versions of and works derived from the content.

This section is not required as such for an "open cloud" - the "open source" modifier can be used to designate instances where the source is available. SamJohnston 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.opencloudinitiative.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Cloud_Principles"
Personal tools