Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Jeremy Stanley wrote: > [...] > A quick search for http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=gpl=1 turns > up the openstack/murano-apps repo which has content aggregated under > a mix of Apache License v2.0, GPLv2 (inherited from Plone), GPLv3 > (from Clearwater), and GNU AGPLv3 (SugarCRM); it calls them

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3 > Logistically it would be best to make this one file GPLv3. No other > files would need to be GPLv3 in Kolla as this is only one that will be > derivative, rest of Kolla will be

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-14 11:11:09 -0500 (-0500), Zane Bitter wrote: [...] > I think the DCO process makes things much clearer though. It's > quite easy to understand that contributions to an ASL2-licensed > repo are ASL2 and contributions to a GPL-licensed repo are GPL. [...] Well, it bears pointing out

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-14 17:26:49 +: > On 2016-11-14 09:53:03 -0600 (-0600), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > [...] > > We don't have any other project with multiple licenses in it? What > > would LICENSE file in github show? Do we need to mention parts of > > GPL there?

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Sooowe do have a precedence (multiple of them in fact), just it seems to be flying under the radar? On 14 November 2016 at 11:26, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-11-14 09:53:03 -0600 (-0600), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > [...] >> We don't have any other project with

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-14 09:53:03 -0600 (-0600), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: [...] > We don't have any other project with multiple licenses in it? What > would LICENSE file in github show? Do we need to mention parts of > GPL there? We have plenty (I expect it may even be a majority) of repos containing files

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 13/11/16 11:44, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-11-12 17:44:42 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote: https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html "This licensing incompatibility applies only when some Apache project software becomes a derivative work of some GPLv3 software, because then

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > Logistically it would be best to make this one file GPLv3. No other > files would need to be GPLv3 in Kolla as this is only one that will be > derivative, rest of Kolla will be safe because of subprocess > separation. Who would be able to say whether or not it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Logistically it would be best to make this one file GPLv3. No other files would need to be GPLv3 in Kolla as this is only one that will be derivative, rest of Kolla will be safe because of subprocess separation. Who would be able to say whether or not it's possible to put single GPLv3 file into

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-12 17:44:42 -0800 (-0800), Clint Byrum wrote: > https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > "This licensing incompatibility applies only when some Apache project > software becomes a derivative work of some GPLv3 software, because then > the Apache software would have to

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-05 14:08:29 +: > On 2016-11-04 16:38:45 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote: > [...] > > Modules are not plugins. > [...] > > This only refers to dynamic inventory, which is hardly even a plugin > > interface. > > > > Strategy plugins run in

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Hey Fungi! So unfortunately I don't see any viable way to write this plugin from scratch. Plugin we'd need to write would have to mimic (without derivative:)) this one https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/plugins/strategy/linear.py <- I don't think it's possible to reinvent

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-04 16:38:45 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote: [...] > Modules are not plugins. [...] > This only refers to dynamic inventory, which is hardly even a plugin > interface. > > Strategy plugins run in ansible itself and must import pieces of Ansible, > and thus must be GPLv3: [...] On

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3 I read what you say Steven;) strategy plugin is not module, we don't use popen there. Also it will require importing GPL code from Ansible itself. Clint is right in this context. Wr

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > *Date: *Friday, November 4, 2016 at 5:54 PM > *To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

t;OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 5:54 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

8 PM To: openstack-dev <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3 Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-04 23:05:54 +: On 2016-11-04 22:50:10 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > As I understand it, the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

; wrote: > Must be gplv3 compatible. not necessarily gpl. apache license is > compatible. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:38 PM > To: openstack-dev > Subject:

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Must be gplv3 compatible. not necessarily gpl. apache license is compatible. Thanks, Kevin From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:38 PM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2016-11-04 23:05:54 +: > On 2016-11-04 22:50:10 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: > [...] > > As I understand it, the challenge here is that plugins for Ansible > > will by definition be derivative works of Ansible and thus inherit > > their license

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 4:05 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: R

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-04 23:06:05 + (+), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: [...] > The correct answer here is simply to develop an ASL2.0 module that > works with Ansible. The GPLv3 does not require us to implement > Ansible modules in GPLv3 – we may use whatever license we like (in > this case ASL2.0

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-04 22:50:10 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > As I understand it, the challenge here is that plugins for Ansible > will by definition be derivative works of Ansible and thus inherit > their license choice. No amount of "clean room reimplementation" > will solve that unless

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

;fu...@yuggoth.org> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> S

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-04 22:22:47 + (+), Steven Dake (stdake) wrote: [...] > The first file I examine in any repository is the LICENSE file – > if its GPLv3, I look no further. I recommend everyone that has > signed the CLA follow the same pattern to keep OpenStack in good > legal health. As I

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Define “touching GPLv3 code”. If you mean using someone else’s work which creates a derived work, that is a big no-no. This would cause your CL If it’s a fresh implementation, then USE ASL2.0. This creates a transitive dependency that taints the module on instantiation, however, since we use

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

ailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3 On 04/11/1

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 04/11/16 12:51, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-11-04 11:42:25 -0500 (-0500), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: [...] Kolla is licensed as Apache v2 all across the board today. To implement one of highly requested features we would need to develop so-called strategy plugin for ansible, and I can't see

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

Yeah, I'll cross-post there, thanks Fungi. Anyone knows of any other openstack project with more than 1 license in their codebase? On 4 November 2016 at 11:51, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-11-04 11:42:25 -0500 (-0500), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: > [...] >> Kolla is licensed

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3

On 2016-11-04 11:42:25 -0500 (-0500), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: [...] > Kolla is licensed as Apache v2 all across the board today. To > implement one of highly requested features we would need to develop > so-called strategy plugin for ansible, and I can't see any reasonable > way to do it without