Open Stack

On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith <john.griffith8 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>



> <snip>
>
> they should be able to simply install it and its free dependencies
>> and get a working system that can communicate with "supported"
>> hardware without needing to also download and install separate
>> proprietary tools from the hardware vendor. It's not what we say
>> today, but it's what I personally feel like we *should* be saying.
>
>
> Your view on what you feel we *should* say, is exactly how I've
> interpreted our position in previous discussions within the Cinder
> project.  Perhaps I'm over reaching in my interpretation and that's why
> this is so hotly debated when I do see it or voice my concerns about it.
>
>
Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in the
IRC discussion on this subject, you've summarised my concern very well. I'm
not convinced that these support tools need to be open source, but they
absolutely need to be licensed in such a way that distributions can
repackage them and freely distribute them. I'm not aware of any tools
currently required by cinder where this is not the case, but a few of us
are in the process of auditing this to make sure we understand the
situation before we clarify our rules.

-- 
Duncan Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160908/6fedffa2/attachment-0001.html>