Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
> A quick search for http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=gpl&i=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 the
-Original Message-
From: Michał Jastrzębski
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Date: November 14, 2016 at 09:54:48
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: 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 that
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?
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 multiple licenses in it? Wh
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
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
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 possible
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 oth
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
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 ansib
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 th
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 furt
-steve
From: Michał Jastrzębski
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module
not for usage
> questions)"
> *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] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3
>
iling List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 5:54 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3
So as Clint mentioned, strategy plugins probably will be ta
say.
Please review the thread on the legal list for more background.
Regards
-steve
From: Clint Byrum
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 4:38 PM
To: openstack-dev
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansi
e 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][
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
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
Stack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 4:05 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3
On 2016-11-04 22:50:10 + (+), Jeremy Stanl
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 shoul
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 you
: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3
On 2016-11-04 22:22:47 + (+),
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 under
t for usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 9:42 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3
Hello,
As you could see in [1], ansible is notorious with it's GPL v3
licen
usage questions)"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM
To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org"
Subject: 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 i
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
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 as Apache v2 all ac
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
Hello,
As you could see in [1], ansible is notorious with it's GPL v3
license. I have question about having single module in Kolla-ansible
project that will be GPL v3.
Kolla is licensed as Apache v2 all across the board today. To
implement one of highly requested features we would need to develop
31 matches
Mail list logo