There is in fact one more very important aspect ... If I get OpenContrail with commercial support I can extend it in house as it seems fit for a given project.
If I get no matter how great binaries from any vendor I have to adjust my projects to fit what given vendor supports. And clearly any vendor is reluctant to implement custom features in common code base for single customer env. Leave alone that internal support within enterprise is also much easier of the white box as opposed to black box :). Personally other then for marketing reasons IMHO it would be much better to get RedHat and Cannonical to ship integrated OpenContrail within their linux distro packages then to care what LF considers legal or illegal name. Best, R. > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, CARVER, PAUL <pc2...@att.com> wrote: > I don’t know how to convince the LF and Juniper lawyers, but I completely > agree. I want a commercial support arrangement, but I don’t want commercial > software that is “based on” or “derived from” Open Source. I want a > commercial support contract for software that **IS** Open Source. The > commonality of the naming is important because I specifically want to know > that when I buy Linux of OpenStack or Contrail from a vendor that what > they’re selling me is support and services, NOT permission to use > proprietary software that shares x% of its code with an Open Source project. > > > > To me the ideal would be multiple vendors all with their own separate > groups of customers but with everybody agreeing that Juniper’s Open > Contrail and X’s Open Contrail and Y’s Open Contrail are all the same > software, cooperatively developed by Juniper and X and Y, with vendors > differentiated by level of support, pricing, strength of presence in > various countries, knowledge of customers’ specific industries, etc. > > > > I know some lawyers, perhaps including AT&T’s lawyers, don’t like the GPL, > but I personally do like it specifically because I like knowing that the > software I’m paying for doesn’t merely **contain** some formerly open > source code, but is in fact currently and will be in the future, entirely > Open Source. > > > > -- > > Paul Carver > > VoIP: 732-545-7377 <(732)%20545-7377> > > Cell: 908-803-1656 <(908)%20803-1656> > > E: pcar...@att.com > > Q Instant Message > > It is difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future. > > > > > > *From:* Dev [mailto:dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert > Raszuk > *Sent:* Friday, December 01, 2017 03:32 > *To:* Harshad Nakil <hna...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* dev@lists.opencontrail.org > *Subject:* Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name > > > > The most valuable property of Open Contrail is that it comes from the same > code base as commercial Contrail. > > > > Renaming it means to many customers a divorce from the original principle. > > > > //RR > > > > On Dec 1, 2017 05:12, "Harshad Nakil" <hna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Forcing OpenContrail to give up identity that got us here since last five > years is not right. > > It is also being ungrateful to creativity. > > > > I never understood the insistence to be part of LF. > > Regards > > -Harshad > >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.opencontrail.org http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
