Open Stack

On 03/19/2013 04:01 PM, Chuck Short wrote:
> On 13-03-19 03:06 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 03/19/2013 02:56 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 03/19/2013 02:16 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>>> On 03/19/2013 01:54 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>>>> On 03/19/2013 01:31 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> So Sean, if you were doing a license review, was this the only (A)GPL
>>>>> dependency you found (are there any GPL deps) ?
>>>> For the record, I was speaking to Sean and neither of us know of any
>>>> problematic Python dependencies in the Folsom release.  This would only
>>>> apply to new dependencies introduced in the Grizzly timeframe.
>>> The list of new dependencies for Grizzly that got are the following:
>>>
>>> jsonpointer                BSD-like    0.5
>>> python-alembic            MIT    0.4.2
>>> python-jsonpatch            BSD-like    0.10
>>> python-openssl (pyOpenSSL)     Apache V2    0.13
>>> python-rtslib                AGPL V3    2.1.fb27
>>> python-stevedore            Apache V2    0.8
>>>
>>> All the others are fine and license compatible besides python-rtslib.
>> Great, thanks.  So how about we do this:
>>
>> 1) Move cinder-rtstool to its own separate repo (rtstool).  This could
>> be on stackforge for convenience, but it would not be an official
>> OpenStack project.
>
> Sure why dont we ask the cinder people how they want to handle this.
>

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.

>>
>> 2) Remove rtslib from the requirements list of Cinder.  Don't list
>> rtstool as a requirement.
> How about we email the author of rtslib to re-license it to a more
> friendlier license and bump the version required by cinder?
>> 3) Make sure Cinder can gracefully handle whether or not rtstool is
>> present on the system.
> Afaik rtstool is not enabled by default so this shouldnt be a problem.
>
>> 4) The TC needs to work on clarifying license policy and ensuring that
>> we have a process in place to make sure the policy is reviewed for each
>> new dependency.
>>
>> 5) Cinder folks may want to consider targetd support in Havana.  It
>> would be HTTP access to something (A)GPL licensed as opposed to having
>> to execute something.  Executing something should still be fine though
>> AFIAK, but IANAL.  :-)
>>
> chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev