On 05/02/16 21:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
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.
ditto
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.
After having put enough (I hope) thoughts on this over the weekend, I think I agree with the above. They way I put it is: What would be my solution, as a cloud provider, if I'd like to have a cloud that relies only on open source technologies? If you will, we could also add: What would distributions of OpenStack recommend as a default driver? This being said, I'd like to throw another question in the mix (just for the sake of discussion and because I like to contradict myself). Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being maintained) even if that solution is terrible? I guess my question is: When do we start considering a project to be safe from an open source perspective? Because, having support for 1 opensource technology doesn't mean it provides enough (or good) open source ways to deploy the software. If the only supported open solution is *terrible* then deployers would be left with only commercial solutions to choose from. I'll comment back on the review but I wanted to get feedback from other folks in this thread. Cheers, Flavio
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
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
