Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2017-01-20 Thread Philipp Reisner
Hi Sean, please review these commits in drbdmanage upstream: http://git.drbd.org/drbdmanage.git/commit/2312d7e7657f98728b6ae1601d8c77010f6adca2 http://git.drbd.org/drbdmanage.git/commit/24ff36ec21f5b7cfdfe38b1888b64eb01f463240 Basically everything behind the dbus API GPL-v3. All files included

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-13 Thread Thierry Carrez
Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-12-12 16:44:53 + (+), Duncan Thomas wrote: > [...] >> Having read the Openstack rules linked to earlier in the thread >> ( https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html ) >> we're clearly violating that. > [...] > > Keep in mind that those

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 07:58:17AM +0100, Mehdi Abaakouk wrote: > Hi, > > I have recently seen that drbdmanage python library is no more GPL2 but > need a end user license agreement [1]. > > Is this compatible with the driver policy of Cinder ? > > [1] >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2016-12-12 16:44:53 + (+), Duncan Thomas wrote: [...] > Having read the Openstack rules linked to earlier in the thread > ( https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html ) > we're clearly violating that. [...] Keep in mind that those guidelines were drafted in

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Ash
Agreed. Just saying that if the software is important to the community, but the distribution/licensing terms are not, there's always a solution. That's all I was trying to get at. If, however, resources don't avail themselves, that can also be indicative that the need vs issue isn't overwhelming.

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Duncan Thomas
On 12 December 2016 at 16:35, Ash wrote: > I tend to agree with you, Sean. Also, if there's a concern that some > project has changed its license, then just create a fork. In the case of > this previously GPL code, it will at least be re-distributable. In the end, > I

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Duncan Thomas
On 12 December 2016 at 16:14, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > Honestly, my opinion is it's just fine as it is, and the fact that this > license has changed doesn't make any difference. > > For most external storage there is _something_ that the deployer needs > to do outside of

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Ash
I tend to agree with you, Sean. Also, if there's a concern that some project has changed its license, then just create a fork. In the case of this previously GPL code, it will at least be re-distributable. In the end, I just don't think this is a huge issue that cannot be easily managed. On Mon,

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:07:23PM +, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 12 December 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > > > > So, what are the steps forward here? Requiring a non-free library like > > drbdmanage is not acceptable AFAIU, > > > > This is pretty much where things

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Duncan Thomas
On 12 December 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > So, what are the steps forward here? Requiring a non-free library like > drbdmanage is not acceptable AFAIU, > This is pretty much where things went dead at the summit - there were various degrees of unacceptability (I was

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Andreas Jaeger
On 2016-12-12 15:46, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:00:41AM +, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> It's a soft dependency, like most of the vendor specific dependencies - you >> only need them if you're using a specific backend. We've loads of them in >> cinder, under a whole bunch of

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 08:46:55AM -0600, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:00:41AM +, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > It's a soft dependency, like most of the vendor specific dependencies - you > > only need them if you're using a specific backend. We've loads of them in > > cinder,

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:00:41AM +, Duncan Thomas wrote: > It's a soft dependency, like most of the vendor specific dependencies - you > only need them if you're using a specific backend. We've loads of them in > cinder, under a whole bunch of licenses. There was a summit session >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Mehdi Abaakouk
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:00:41AM +, Duncan Thomas wrote: It's a soft dependency, like most of the vendor specific dependencies - you only need them if you're using a specific backend. We've loads of them in cinder, under a whole bunch of licenses. There was a summit session discussing it

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Duncan Thomas
It's a soft dependency, like most of the vendor specific dependencies - you only need them if you're using a specific backend. We've loads of them in cinder, under a whole bunch of licenses. There was a summit session discussing it that didn't come to any firm conclusions. On 12 December 2016 at

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Mehdi Abaakouk
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:52:50AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: That said, it doesn't seem to be listed as a Cinder requirement right now ? Is it a new dependency being considered, or is it currently flying under the radar ? I think this is because this library is not available on Pypi. --

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Andreas Jaeger
On 2016-12-12 11:52, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Mehdi Abaakouk wrote: >> I have recently seen that drbdmanage python library is no more GPL2 but >> need a end user license agreement [1]. >> Is this compatible with the driver policy of Cinder ? > > It's not acceptable as a dependency of an OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Thierry Carrez
Mehdi Abaakouk wrote: > I have recently seen that drbdmanage python library is no more GPL2 but > need a end user license agreement [1]. > Is this compatible with the driver policy of Cinder ? It's not acceptable as a dependency of an OpenStack project (be it GPLv2 or using a custom EULA), see:

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-12 Thread Dulko, Michal
On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 07:58 +0100, Mehdi Abaakouk wrote: Hi, I have recently seen that drbdmanage python library is no more GPL2 but need a end user license agreement [1]. Is this compatible with the driver policy of Cinder ? [1]

[openstack-dev] [cinder] drbdmanage is no more GPL2

2016-12-11 Thread Mehdi Abaakouk
Hi, I have recently seen that drbdmanage python library is no more GPL2 but need a end user license agreement [1]. Is this compatible with the driver policy of Cinder ? [1] http://git.drbd.org/drbdmanage.git/commitdiff/441dc6a96b0bc6a08d2469fa5a82d97fc08e8ec1 Regards -- Mehdi Abaakouk