Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

2017-12-01 Thread Abhijit Gadgil
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:24 PM, CARVER, PAUL 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 >

[opencontrail-dev] KubeCon track schedule

2017-12-01 Thread Gregory Elkinbard
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YA0X1GYcAMhcXAhjdSnq_WWmhQKV6pHwkK3PSu9V3e4/edit ___ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.opencontrail.org http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org

Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

2017-12-01 Thread Robert Raszuk
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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

2017-12-01 Thread CARVER, PAUL
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

Re: [opencontrail-dev] We need a new name

2017-12-01 Thread Robert Raszuk
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" wrote: > Forcing OpenContrail to give up