Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project
Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily.<p>I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues.<p>Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of money is at stacks here (imagine if k8s was still under the control of Google, AWS or Azure will never be able to launch something called Kubernetes engine because there is a risk Google will sue them).<p>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.<p>The OUC was created to solve the TM issue and allow decisions to move fast, the usage guidelines haven't changed and will likely not change.<p>I do have to admit that myself i don't understand why no one from IBM is in the initial board of OUC