Open Stack

On 06/14/2014 09:55 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:20:27PM -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:

>>> So the question at hand is whether or not the license of libmysqlclient
>>> carries through and attaches to OpenStack. I contend that it does not,
>>> for a specific reason: we're using it as an optional plugin.
>>>
>>> We don't use mysql-python itself. We use sqlalchemy, which has pluggable
>>> provider support. One of the plugins that can be used with sqlalchemy is
>>> MySQL. Another is Postgres. Another is Oracle. Etc. So nothing about
>>> OpenStack _itself_ requires MySQL or libmysqlclient. It is a
>>> runtime/deployment choice.
>
> Right, makes sense to me. However, Chris Friesen's hypothetical is:
>
>   "Suppose someone creates a modified openstack and wishes to sell it to
>    others.  They want to keep their changes private.  They also want to
>    use the mysql database.
>
>    The concern is this:
>
>    nova is apache licensed
>    sqlalchemy is MIT licensed
>    mysql-python (aka mysqldb1) is GPLv2 licensed
>    mysql is GPLv2 licensed
>
>   The concern is that since nova/sqlalchemy/mysql-python are all
>   essentially linked together, an argument could be made that the work
>   as a whole is a derivative work of mysql-python, and thus all the
>   source code must be made available to anyone using the binary."
>
> So it seems what he really should have been asking is whether
> (modified) nova/sqlalchemy/mysql-python/libmysqlclient somehow form a
> derivative work of libmysqlclient.

Hi,

I subscribed to follow this discussion.

Thank you for the concise summary.  I believe you are correct that this 
is the question I should have been asking.

As further background, this would be in the context of providing a 
complete OpenStack solution (with nova modifications) that would be sold 
to end-users for private clusters, so the database would be shipped 
alongside nova, rather than being selected/configured at system install 
time.

Also, I realize that proper legal advice would need to be sought, but I 
also wanted to get a feel for what stance (if any) the OpenStack 
community takes on this sort of issue.

> I don't think Chris Friesen's question is an OpenStack project
> question, since the issue he's worried about results from his own
> discretionary choices downstream, if I understand everything correctly
> here.

While true that downstream choices are involved, I think it would be 
beneficial to the OpenStack project to clearly highlight any legal 
issues around the use of various sub-components.  Given that OpenStack 
itself is Apache-licensed, someone could easily miss the fact that it 
uses sub-components with other licensing.

Chris