On 2016-09-08 23:41:42 +0300 (+0300), Duncan Thomas wrote: > Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in the > IRC discussion on this subject, you've summarised my concern very well. I'm > not convinced that these support tools need to be open source, but they > absolutely need to be licensed in such a way that distributions can > repackage them and freely distribute them. I'm not aware of any tools > currently required by cinder where this is not the case, but a few of us > are in the process of auditing this to make sure we understand the > situation before we clarify our rules.
Well, English fails me here where Latin succeeds... when I say "free" dependencies I mean FSF-sense "as in speech" (libertas) not "as in beer" (gratis). But idealism aside, on a gradient of the good the bad and the ugly I agree that a minimum of being legally redistributable without obtaining express permission from the vendor, while not the good, is at least also not the ugly. My personal preference is that any tool needed locally on the server so that OpenStack drivers can communicate with "supported" hardware also be distributed under an OSI-approved or similar license and I doubt I'm alone in that, yet I also recognize that goal may take a significant amount of time and effort for us to reach. -- 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
