On 02/05/2016 02:16 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/05/2016 01:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
So, is Poppy "open core"?
Whether or not it is, I'm not sure how it is part of a Ubiquitous Open
Source Cloud Platform. Because it only enables the use of commerical
services.
It's fine that it's open source software. I just don't think it's OpenStack.
So, I've read through this ML thread a couple times now. I see arguments
on both sides of the coin here.
I'm no fan of open core. Never have been. So it irks me that Poppy can't
work with any non-proprietary backend. But, as others have said, that
isn't the Poppy team's fault.
However, even though it's not the Poppy team's fault, I think the fact
that the Poppy project user's only choice when using Poppy is to use a
non-free backend disqualifies Poppy from being an OpenStack project. The
fact that the Poppy team follows the four Opens and genuinely wants to
align with the OpenStack development methodology and processes is
admirable and we should certainly encourage that behaviour, including
welcoming Poppy into our CI platform for as much as we can (given the
obvious limitations around functional testing of Poppy). However, at the
end of the day, I agree with Sean that this non-free restriction
inherent in Poppy means it should not be included in the
openstack/governance projects.yaml file as an "official" OpenStack project.
I've left this comment on the review accordingly.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
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
