Open Stack

On 2013-03-19 11:04:23 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> We should definitely solve this issue before Grizzly final release.
[...]

The usual advice is to contact the author and inquire about
relicensing or dual-licensing the software under less restrictive
terms. In this case however, it looks like rtslib is open-core (with
the stripped-down "community edition" released under AGPL and the
more full-featured version available only commercially) and so this
particular license was almost certainly chosen intentionally for its
barriers to widespread use.

The main argument against AGPL software is that some copyright
holders interpret the license to mean that any other software linked
with it (sometimes even via network APIs) must also be made
available under a free license. Say you're an OpenStack-using public
cloud provider and you extend Cinder in proprietary ways to suit a
niche market but end up using rtslib with it... you could be
required (depending on RisingTide Systems interpretation of the
AGPL) to publish those patches and any other related software. I'm
all for companies releasing more free software, but this often poses
a major barrier for adoption with service providers who may not be
in a position to publish their work for a variety of reasons.

As a result, many large companies reject any and all use of AGPL
software just because it's a legal landmine for them. It also makes
it impossible for some of us working for those companies to
contribute bug fixes to AGPL libraries and tools when we come across
issues with them. The optional status of rtslib in Cinder may help
in this case (I am not a lawyer), but potentially leaves rtslib
integration and support as a second-class citizen because many of us
aren't allowed to actively help with it.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley