On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Hi everyone,
Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were
created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open,
"Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open
core' software". What does this mean in 2016 ?
Back in 2010 when OpenStack was started, this was a key difference with
the other open source cloud platform (Eucalyptus) which was following an
Open Core strategy with a crippled community edition and an "enterprise
version". OpenStack was then the property of a single entity
(Rackspace), so giving strong signals that we would never follow such a
strategy was essential to form a real community.
Fast-forward today, the open source project is driven by a non-profit
independent Foundation, which could not even do an "enterprise edition"
if it wanted to. However, member companies build "enterprise products"
on top of the Apache-licensed upstream project. And we have drivers that
expose functionality in proprietary components. So what does it mean to
"not do open core" in 2016 ? What is acceptable and what's not ? It is
time for us to refresh this.
My personal take on that is that we can draw a line in the sand for what
is acceptable as an official project in the upstream OpenStack open
source effort. It should have a fully-functional, production-grade open
source implementation. If you need proprietary software or a commercial
entity to fully use the functionality of a project or getting serious
about it, then it should not be accepted in OpenStack as an official
project. It can still live as a non-official project and even be hosted
under OpenStack infrastructure, but it should not be part of
"OpenStack". That is how I would interpret "no open core" in OpenStack
2016.
Of course, the devil is in the details, especially around what I mean by
"fully-functional" and "production-grade". Is it just an API/stability
thing, or does performance/scalability come into account ? There will
always be some subjectivity there, but I think it's a good place to start.
Comments ?
If a project isn't fully functional* then why would we accept it at all?
Imagine this scenario:
1) Heat didn't exist
2) A project exactly like heat applies for OpenStack, that lets you use
templates to create resources to a specification
3) BUT, if you don't buy Proprietary Enterprise Template Parsing
Platform 9, a product of Shed Cat Enterpise Leopards**, you can't parse
templates longer than 200 characters.
Would *any* TC count that as a project that could join under our current
system? I don't think so. The TC (and community) would say something
along the lines of "WTF are you thinking? Go read the 4 opens and try again"
I don't think adding "no open core" would change a decision the
future-community and future-tc might make, because they will be elected
by aforementioned community. Adding buzz-requirements like "must be
fully-functional, production grade, webscale open-cloud softwidgets"
isn't going to help future-us.
Footnotes:
* in my view, an openstack product that requires you to pay a vendor is
as functional as an openstack product chock-full of syntax errors
** Shed Cat Enterprise Leopard is strictly fictional, and not based on
any company that currently or ever has existed.
--
Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
