Open Stack

On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 13:27 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 03/19/2013 10:51 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 16:30 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> Recently just doing a license analysis of the dependencies for the
> >> various projects and one popped up that seemed worth discussing.
> >>
> >> rtslib is currently listed as a dependency for cinder. The package
> >> itself is AGPL, which has some rather strong requirements for a cloud
> >> provider using it
> >> (https://github.com/agrover/rtslib-fb/blob/master/COPYING).
> >>
> >> It's currently used only in bin/cinder-rtstool, so it's largely isolated
> >> in it's use. However given that the spirit of the OpenStack project was
> >> Apache 2 style licensing, it's a bit odd to have an AGPL dependency that
> >> really means cinder-rtstool is AGPL (even though it says Apache2 in the
> >> header).
> >>
> > ...
> >> My inclination is that tooling which requires AGPL libraries probably
> >> shouldn't be in the main OpenStack tree. Maybe externally available as
> >> some sort of contrib. However, licensing always opens up new cans of
> >> worms. So I'd like to hear other opinions here.
> >
> > Just to be clear on something here - our policy is to not allow the use
> > of any GPL libraries. And we don't know of any cases where we currently
> > use GPL libraries.
> 
> I wasn't sure if that was formal policy or not, but if it is, I'm happy 
> with that. If that's the case though, it got missed in at least one 
> instance here by rtslib coming in as a cinder dependency.

To be clear, I'm really not sure whether this is our policy either. I
guess I always assumed it was, but that's based on nothing substantive.

Cheers,
Mark.