[openstack-dev] Policy on using GPL libraries [was Re: rtslib dependency for cinder is AGPL - thoughts?]

Richard Fontana rfontana at redhat.com
Fri Mar 22 21:44:19 UTC 2013


Just *one* more comment on this, as I wish to say something more
explicitly than I did before (partly because I'm now more confident
about something I assert here).

> > > There is also the question of whether including an optional,
> > > not-used-by-default program which imports a GPL licensed Python module
> > > in an OpenStack project really does mean that the project must be
> > > distributed under the terms of the GPL - i.e. (1) would cinder-rtstool
> > > be considered a derivative work of rtslib and (2) would you be required
> > > to distribute just cinder-rtstool or all of Cinder or all OpenStack
> > > projects under the terms of the GPL?
> > > 
> > > On (1) a quick google turns up e.g. this interesting take from VanL:
> > > 
> > >   http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/
> > > 
> > >    1. foo.py is a Python library released under the GPLv3. bar.py is a
> > >    library distributed commercially. If bar contains import foo, must
> > >    bar.py be released under the GPL?
> > > 
> > >    Maybe. This has not been resolved by the court, and the answer you
> > >    get depends on who you ask.

I am reasonably confident that all mainstream Linux distributions have
been operating for years under the consistent assumption that the
answer to this general question is "no".

My wish is that any policy adopted by OpenStack on this issue be
developed and worded in such a way that it will not have problematic
or disruptive consequences for such Linux distributions. 

Red Hat (my employer) is, of course, only one of a number of companies
substantially involved in developing and distributing such Linux
distributions that are also substantially involved in OpenStack.

  - RF




More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list