On 2015-09-25 13:15:24 -0600 (-0600), John Griffith wrote: [...] > It seems that there are folks that have taken quite a bit of offense to > this, and are more than mildly upset with me. To them I apologize if this > upset you. I will say however that given the same situation and timing, I > would do the same thing again. I'm a bit offended that there are > accusations that I'm intentionally doing something against NetApp (or any > Vendor here). I won't even dignify the comments by responding, I'll just > let my contributions and involvement in the community speak for itself. [...]
For what it's worth, I was personally shocked to see developers connected to our community copy Apache-licensed software contributed by others into a proprietary derivative and redistribute it without attribution in clear violation of the Apache license. I understand that free software licenses are a bit of an enigma for traditional enterprises, but I hold our community to a higher standard than that. Contributing to free software means, among other things, that you actually ought to understand the licenses under which those contributions are made. I was however pleased to see today that a new upload of the offending library, while still not distributed under a free license, now at least seems to me (in my non-lawyer opinion) to be abiding by the terms of the Apache license for the parts of OpenStack it includes. Thank you for taking our software's licenses seriously! -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ 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
