On 13 September 2016 at 06:44, Ben Swartzlander <b...@swartzlander.org> wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 11:12 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> I don't care so much whether your CLI or API proxy in open or closed >> source, but I really do care if I can create a distribution, even a >> novel one, with that software in it, without hitting licensing issues. >> That is, as I see it, a bare minimum - anything less than that and it >> does not belong in the cinder source tree. >> > > I don't understand how you can have this stance while tolerating the > existence of such things as the VMware driver. That software (ESXi) > absolutely requires a license to use or distribute. In all honesty, I hadn't considered the situation in detail until the recent IBM discussions - I've raised concerns before when specific troublesome libraries appeared (the Netapp one, and rts-lib, both solved by relicensing to apache) but never tried to audit the whole codebase. There's an etherpad Walt linked to int he meeting that is collecting the dependency info for various drivers, so hopefully we'll have an accurate assessment of the current situation so that we can figure out what we're doing going forward. -- Duncan Thomas
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
