We have several Ansible modules that we've been carrying[0] which were created in support of managing OpenStack. We've had these modules for a while now and you're free to take / use all that you may needed without running into request, license, owner, or governance issues. Like you, we're hoping to drop these modules in favor of the new Ansible V2 modules once released.
This may be a good first convergence point for our projects as we're both leveraging Ansible for deployments, we have a similar needs in the space, the OSAD code base has been tracking liberty for a while which you guys are now working on, and we already have a bunch of modules that we use everyday. In terms of support we have an active review to add keystone v3 support to our keystone module[1] and while it may not fit your current syntax it should be enough to keep things going until we both need to refactor some things to leverage all of the coming upstream goodness. I hope this helps and if you guys are interested in working on any these things we'd love help in a collaborative effort. -- Kevin Carter IRC: cloudnull [0] https://github.com/stackforge/os-ansible-deployment/tree/master/playbooks/library [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196943/ ________________________________ From: Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 12:47 PM To: s...@yaple.net; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Greg DeKoenigsberg Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Plans for using Pre-2.0 Ansible modules That sounds like option #4, so then I guess we don’t need the TC to evaluate the “legalness” of this approach since it does not trigger GPL contamination. TC apologies for the noise – Sam said option #4 was difficult to do :) Regards -steve From: Sam Yaple <sam...@yaple.net<mailto:sam...@yaple.net>> Reply-To: "s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>" <s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 5:15 AM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Cc: Greg DeKoenigsberg <g...@ansible.com<mailto:g...@ansible.com>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][tc] Plans for using Pre-2.0 Ansible modules All, I went ahead and wrote the temp module that will fill the gaps that the GPLv3 modules will eventually solve. It appears that upstream Shade still doesn't have merge the capability to create roles, even though mordred has the reviews up. This means even if we solve the licensing issue, we will still be lacking role usage support until shade is updated upstream. The review listed below has a 'kolla_keystone.py' module. As well as two modules that are licensed ASL2.0 and I have permission from the author to use in our repo (there is a link in each module with a git commit referencing where they were pulled from with the appropriate license). https://review.openstack.org/199463 Sam Yaple 864-901-0012 On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 7/7/15, 2:05 PM, "Robert Collins" <robe...@robertcollins.net<mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net>> wrote: >On 4 July 2015 at 06:53, Steven Dake (stdake) ><std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote: >> Kolla Devs as well as the Technical Committee, >> >> I wanted to get the TC¹s thoughts on this plan of action as we intend to >> apply for big tent once our Ansible code has completed implementation. >>If >> the approach outlined in this email seems like a blocker and we should >>just >> start with #4 instead, it would be immensely helpful to know now. >> >> The problem: >> A whole slew of OpenStack modules exist upstream in the Ansible core >> directory. Kolla wants to use these modules. These files are licensed >> under the GPLv3. They will be released with Ansible 2.0 but Ansible >>2.0 is >> not yet available. In the meantime we need these modules to execute our >> system. The repo in question is: > >As I understand our current license situation, you won't be eligible >for big-tent if you depend on GPLv3 code. > >From the requirements " * Project must have no library dependencies >which effectively restrict > how the project may be distributed or deployed >" > >So I'm also strongly inclined to recommend you speak to the legal list >about the implications here. Using a GPLv3 tool via the CLI is very >different (by the GPL's design) to using it as a library. Rob, I pinged legal-discuss on this matter. I am hopeful the experts can provide guidance for the Technical Committee and our project as to how to proceed. Regards -steve > >-Rob > > >-- >Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com<mailto:rbtcoll...@hp.com>> >Distinguished Technologist >HP Converged Cloud > >__________________________________________________________________________ >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >Unsubscribe: >openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
