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
>
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
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
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
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