Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2016-02-05 12:27:44 -0600: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> > wrote: > > > So, is Poppy "open core"? > > > > It doesn't follow the 'spirit' of open core, but it does have some of the > characteristics, in that the open code is not all that useful, or maybe > even testable, without the commercial component(s) (at this time). > > So while Poppy may not fully qualify for the open core label, it still > fails some of the tests that we want to see, such as a usable open source > implementation. > > dt >
Testability is certainly an issue. There are ways to deal with the limitations, though. Is it any different from the other third-party CI we support for hardware drivers? Maybe it means no project wants to rely on Poppy because there's no way to set up integration tests. That's OK. We have other projects that don't have dependencies. I'm not comfortable separating the intent aspect of the definition of "open core" from the effect. We set rules for the community to codify the culture and to discourage bad behavior. Nothing the Poppy team has done qualifies as bad behavior. What is the point of penalizing them with a strict interpretation of a rule meant to address a different problem? Doug __________________________________________________________________________ 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
