Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 Back to the original thread: what does "no open core" mean in OpenStack 2016 ? I think working on that could help sway the Poppy decision one way or another: my original cl

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Back to the original thread: what does "no open core" mean in OpenStack > 2016 ? I think working on that could help sway the Poppy decision one way > or another: my original clarification proposal ("It should have a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

ack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 > On 02/22/2016 07:19 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Perez > > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

penstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 On 02/18/2016 09:05 PM, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: There is no implicit (or explicit) requirement for the tests to be a full integration/end-to-end test. Mocks and/or un

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Back to the original thread: what does "no open core" mean in OpenStack 2016 ? I think working on that could help sway the Poppy decision one way or another: my original clarification proposal ("It should have a fully-functional, production-grade open source implementation") would mean we

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

g> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 > On 02/18/2016 09:05 PM, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: > > There is no implicit (or explicit) requirement for the tests to be a > > full integration/end-to-end test. Mocks and/or unit tests would be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/18/2016 09:05 PM, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: There is no implicit (or explicit) requirement for the tests to be a full integration/end-to-end test. Mocks and/or unit tests would be sufficient to satisfy "test-driven gate". While I do agree there is no requirement, I would not be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/17/2016 06:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social aspects

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Cody A.W. Somerville < cody.somervi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to suggest we tightly scope this discussion and subsequent > decision to Poppy exclusively. The reason for this is two fold. The first > is so that a timely resolution and answer can be

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: >> >>> On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> So I think the project team is doing everything

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 On 2016-02-18 17:20:35 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote: [...] > Presently, I think we need a F/OSS CDN but it isn't going to > happen until the infrastructure for a CDN is something any > OpenStack consumer would want to mana

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 2016-02-18 17:20:35 -0600 (-0600), Ian Cordasco wrote: [...] > Presently, I think we need a F/OSS CDN but it isn't going to > happen until the infrastructure for a CDN is something any > OpenStack consumer would want to manage. [...] Probably an unusual use case and stretching the definition

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

ist (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 > On 16/02/16 19:17 +, Sean M. Collins wrote: > >That is certainly a problem. However I think I would lean on Sean > >Dague's argum

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 16/02/16 19:17 +, Sean M. Collins wrote: Doug Hellmann wrote: Is there? I thought the point was OpenCDN isn't actually usable. Maybe someone from the Poppy team can provide more details about that. That is certainly a problem. However I think I would lean on Sean Dague's argument about

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

i...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:20 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: >> On 02/16/201

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Anne Gentle's message of 2016-02-17 12:28:42 -0600: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > > On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > >> Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: > >> > >>> On 02/16/2016 11:30

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: >> >>> On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> So I think the project team is doing everything

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/17/2016 09:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social aspects

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/17/2016 03:10 AM, Sean M. Collins wrote: > Thomas Goirand wrote: >> s/I dislike/is not free software/ [*] >> >> It's not a mater of taste. Having Poppy requiring a non-free component, >> even indirectly (ie: the Oracle JVM that CassandraDB needs), makes it >> non-free. > > Your definition

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Mike Perez's message of 2016-02-17 03:21:51 -0800: > On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We > > changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social > > aspects of projects, and community

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 07:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > So, is Poppy "open core"? I think it's a simple answer: no, Poppy is not open core. Poppy is not open core... Is Linux Open Core because you have to buy a processor and ram to run it? Or is Firefox open core because I have to buy service from a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social aspects of projects, and community interactions. Telling a bunch of folks that they "are not OpenStack" even though they

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Edward Leafe's message of 2016-02-16 13:46:50 -0600: > On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We > > changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social > > aspects of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > So I think the project team is doing everything we've asked. We > changed our policies around new projects to emphasize the social > aspects of projects, and community interactions. Telling a bunch > of folks that they

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

vils. Thanks, Kevin From: Dean Troyer [dtro...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:57 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Amit Gand

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Dean Troyer's message of 2016-02-16 12:57:58 -0600: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Amit Gandhi > wrote: > > > Poppy intends to be an abstraction API over the various CDNs available. > > We do not want to be in the business of building a CDN itself. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Doug Hellmann wrote: > Is there? I thought the point was OpenCDN isn't actually usable. Maybe > someone from the Poppy team can provide more details about that. That is certainly a problem. However I think I would lean on Sean Dague's argument about how Neutron had an open source solution that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Thomas Goirand wrote: > s/I dislike/is not free software/ [*] > > It's not a mater of taste. Having Poppy requiring a non-free component, > even indirectly (ie: the Oracle JVM that CassandraDB needs), makes it > non-free. Your definition of non-free versus free, if I am not mistaken, is based on

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Amit Gandhi wrote: > Poppy intends to be an abstraction API over the various CDNs available. > We do not want to be in the business of building a CDN itself. > Specific to the Poppy discussion, I think this is another point that makes

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

OpenCDN is an abandoned project, although there have been a few attempts at creating one called “OpenCDN”. As far as the we can tell (Poppy Team), there is currently no viable Open source CDN’s available. If there is we would be happy to add it as a supported driver. Also, even if the CDN

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/16/2016 03:15 PM, Sean M. Collins wrote: > Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Oh, that, and ... not using CassandraDB. And yes, this thread is a good >> place to have this topic. I'm not sure who replied to me this thread >> wasn't the place to discuss it: I respectfully disagree, since it's >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Sean M. Collins's message of 2016-02-16 07:15:34 +: > Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Oh, that, and ... not using CassandraDB. And yes, this thread is a good > > place to have this topic. I'm not sure who replied to me this thread > > wasn't the place to discuss it: I respectfully

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Thomas Goirand wrote: > Oh, that, and ... not using CassandraDB. And yes, this thread is a good > place to have this topic. I'm not sure who replied to me this thread > wasn't the place to discuss it: I respectfully disagree, since it's > another major blocker, IMO as important, if not more, as

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/08/2016 09:54 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being > maintained) even if that solution is terrible? Let's say it was doing that, and spawning instances containing OpenCDN running on a multi-datacenter OpenStack deployment,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 11/02/16 17:31 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 02/08/2016 09:54 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being maintained) even if that solution is terrible? Let's say it was doing that, and spawning instances containing OpenCDN

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2016-02-10 08:35:19 -0800: > Chris Dent wrote: > > [...] > > Observing this thread and "the trouble with names"[1] one I get > > concerned that we're trending in the direction of expecting > > projects/servers/APIs to be done and perfect before they will

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Chris Dent wrote: [...] Observing this thread and "the trouble with names"[1] one I get concerned that we're trending in the direction of expecting projects/servers/APIs to be done and perfect before they will ever be OpenStack. This, of course, runs entirely contrary to the spirit of open

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 10/02/2016 11:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Chris Dent wrote: >> [...] >> Observing this thread and "the trouble with names"[1] one I get >> concerned that we're trending in the direction of expecting >> projects/servers/APIs to be done and perfect before they will ever >> be OpenStack.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 10/02/16 21:53, "gordon chung" wrote: > > >On 10/02/2016 11:35 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Chris Dent wrote: >>> [...] >>> Observing this thread and "the trouble with names"[1] one I get >>> concerned that we're trending in the direction of expecting >>> projects/servers/APIs

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/05/2016 01:16 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/05/2016 01:27 PM, Mike Perez wrote: >>> 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. >> From a QA perspective in

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

ust my 2 cents. Thanks, Kevin From: Ed Leafe [e...@leafe.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:08 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 -BEGIN PGP SI

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 11/02/16 00:33, "gordon chung" wrote: > > >On 10/02/2016 4:28 PM, Tim Bell wrote: >> >> On 10/02/16 21:53, "gordon chung" wrote: >> >>> apologies if this was asked somewhere else in thread, but should we try >>> to define "production" scale or can we even? based

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, Jim Meyer wrote: On Feb 5, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote: The scale could be defined on the basis of the survey data. The reference implementation should be able to address at least X% of deployments. I can think of at least one project which was not

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 08/02/16 10:52 -0800, Mike Perez wrote: On 13:56 Feb 08, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 08/02/16 09:24 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: >On 02/08/2016 08:54 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > >>Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being >>maintained) even if that solution is

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

> On Feb 5, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > > ... > >> On "production-grade": >> >> I'd be (strongly) in favor of defining a target deployment configuration and >> size which we find representative of the minimum bar for "production-grade." >> Anything less concrete

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Fri, Feb 05 2016, Jay Pipes wrote: > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 06/02/16 12:12 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 02/05/2016 06:57 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, "Open Source", added the following precision: "We

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/08/2016 08:54 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > 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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 13:56 Feb 08, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 08/02/16 09:24 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: > >On 02/08/2016 08:54 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > > >>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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 08/02/16 09:24 -0500, Sean Dague wrote: On 02/08/2016 08:54 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 11:20 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: IMO, a middleware to access proprietary SaaS may be fully open. But it's not OpenStack, as Sean Dague wrote. That's what I wrote in the paragraph following the one you quoted. :) -jay

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 02:41 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > 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 >> wrote: >> >>> So, is Poppy "open core"? >>> >> >> It doesn't follow the 'spirit' of open core, but it does

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

There are a lot of good questions and points being raised in this thread but I think it might be appropriate to say we've opened a can of worms. As mentioned by Doug there is a rather specific case[1] being considered that I think provides some important context and framing. It is clear that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were > created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, > "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open > core' software".

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Dean Troyer wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: My personal take on that is that we can draw a line in the sand for what is acceptable as an official project in the upstream OpenStack open source

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

I think that will become a clear definition but not a strict one :) In Huawei, each release of product will be evaluated by availability, security, usability, maintainability and something else. Those design ideas looks difficult but could drive projects stronger. On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:49 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Ryan Brown's message of 2016-02-05 12:14:34 -0500: > On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were > > created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, > > "Open Source",

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 >> [...] >> Of course, the devil is in the details, especially around what I mean by >> "fully-functional" and "product

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 14:23 Feb 05, Tim Bell wrote: > I think defining 'fully-functional' is easy enough until you allow 'vendor > extensions' into the API. But there is still an amount of objective criteria > to look at to make it something that a group of, say 13 judges, might arrive > at a reasonable answer. I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Doug Hellmann 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open core' software". What does

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 01:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Ryan Brown's message of 2016-02-05 12:14:34 -0500: On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were created to define how we would operate as a community.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 07:57 Feb 05, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: > > > My personal take on that is that we can draw a line in the sand for what > > is acceptable as an official project in the upstream OpenStack open source > > effort. It should

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 05/02/16 10:59, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were > created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, > "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open > core' software".

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

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 > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 2016-02-05 13:17:40 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote: [...] > My understanding of the "no open core" requirement is about the > intent of the contributor. We don't want separate community and > "enterprise" editions of components (services or drivers). The > Poppy situation doesn't seem to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 12:14 PM, Ryan Brown wrote: > On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were >> created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, >> "Open Source", added the following

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 01:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Ryan Brown's message of 2016-02-05 12:14:34 -0500: >> On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were >>> created to define how we would operate as

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 12:27 Feb 05, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Doug Hellmann > 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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-02-05 14:16:12 -0500: > On 02/05/2016 01:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Ryan Brown's message of 2016-02-05 12:14:34 -0500: > >> On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> Even before OpenStack had a name,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 14:41 Feb 05, Doug Hellmann wrote: > 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 > > wrote: > > > > > So, is Poppy "open core"? > > > > > > > It doesn't follow the 'spirit' of open core, but it

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > My personal take on that is that we can draw a line in the sand for what > is acceptable as an official project in the upstream OpenStack open source > effort. It should have a fully-functional, production-grade open

[openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Hi everyone, Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open core' software". What does this mean in 2016 ? Back in 2010 when

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

From: Dean Troyer Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Date: Friday 5 February 2016 at 14:57 To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 06:57 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were > created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, > "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open > core' software".

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/05/2016 06:57 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were > created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open, > "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open > core' software".

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

On 02/06/2016 10:41 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > 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. I don't agree. Poppy could leverage a multi-datacneter OpenStack deployment,