<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Eric Harney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eharney@redhat.com" target="_blank">eharney@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 03/19/2013 04:01 PM, Chuck Short wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 13-03-19 03:06 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 03/19/2013 02:56 PM, Sean Dague wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 03/19/2013 02:16 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 03/19/2013 01:54 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 03/19/2013 01:31 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<snip><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
To be clear, I'm really not sure whether this is our policy either. I<br>
guess I always assumed it was, but that's based on nothing<br>
substantive.<br>
</blockquote>
So Sean, if you were doing a license review, was this the only (A)GPL<br>
dependency you found (are there any GPL deps) ?<br>
</blockquote>
For the record, I was speaking to Sean and neither of us know of any<br>
problematic Python dependencies in the Folsom release. This would only<br>
apply to new dependencies introduced in the Grizzly timeframe.<br>
</blockquote>
The list of new dependencies for Grizzly that got are the following:<br>
<br>
jsonpointer BSD-like 0.5<br>
python-alembic MIT 0.4.2<br>
python-jsonpatch BSD-like 0.10<br>
python-openssl (pyOpenSSL) Apache V2 0.13<br>
python-rtslib AGPL V3 2.1.fb27<br>
python-stevedore Apache V2 0.8<br>
<br>
All the others are fine and license compatible besides python-rtslib.<br>
</blockquote>
Great, thanks. So how about we do this:<br>
<br>
1) Move cinder-rtstool to its own separate repo (rtstool). This could<br>
be on stackforge for convenience, but it would not be an official<br>
OpenStack project.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sure why dont we ask the cinder people how they want to handle this.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
I've been digging into this today -- I think this proposal sounds reasonable. 1, 2, and 3 here give a working solution that shouldn't be too much effort. It just requires that rtstool gets packaged in distros as well, which is another step, but should be ok.<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2) Remove rtslib from the requirements list of Cinder. Don't list<br>
rtstool as a requirement.<br>
</blockquote>
How about we email the author of rtslib to re-license it to a more<br>
friendlier license and bump the version required by cinder?<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3) Make sure Cinder can gracefully handle whether or not rtstool is<br>
present on the system.<br>
</blockquote>
Afaik rtstool is not enabled by default so this shouldnt be a problem.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
4) The TC needs to work on clarifying license policy and ensuring that<br>
we have a process in place to make sure the policy is reviewed for each<br>
new dependency.<br>
<br>
5) Cinder folks may want to consider targetd support in Havana. It<br>
would be HTTP access to something (A)GPL licensed as opposed to having<br>
to execute something. Executing something should still be fine though<br>
AFIAK, but IANAL. :-)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
chuck<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Just a point of clarification, I in NO WAY meant to say that the AGPL or any other open source license was ridiculous. I should have been more clear with respect to my comment regarding the situation we are in at this stage of the release with the incompatibility of the licenses etc. and some of the concerns.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To be fair, early this morning when all of this started some of the authors for AGPL reached out to see if they could help in any way, I hope that I did not offend them or anyone else on this email list, that was not my intent at all. </div>