Open Stack

Excerpts from Steven Dake (stdake)'s message of 2015-07-03 11:53:00 -0700:
> Kolla Devs as well as the Technical Committee,
> 
> I wanted to get the TC’s thoughts on this plan of action as we intend to apply for big tent once our Ansible code has completed implementation.  If the approach outlined in this email seems like a blocker and we should just start with #4 instead, it would be immensely helpful to know now.
> 
> The problem:
> A whole slew of OpenStack modules exist upstream in the Ansible core directory.  Kolla wants to use these modules.  These files are licensed under the GPLv3.  They will be released with Ansible 2.0 but Ansible 2.0 is not yet available.  In the meantime we need these modules to execute our system.  The repo in question is:
> 
> https://github.com/ansible/ansible-modules-core
> 
> The possible solutions:
> 1. Mordred suggested just merging the code in our repo, but I thought this might trigger license contamination so I am not hot on this idea.

Nope, GPLv3 only contaminates when you combine the two as a single
work and distribute the result, such as with linking and distributing
binaries dependent on the GPL'd library. With this case, you're just
calling these with Ansible, which combines them with module_utils,
which is also GPLv3, but not with anything else. I'm not a lawyer,
but this would be my technical assessment of the situation.

> 2. Relicense the upstream modules in ASL short term.  Mordred tried this but thinks its not possible because of the varied contributors.
> 3. Fork the repo In question, remove everything except cloud/openstack directory and turn this into a pip installable library.
> 4. Make a hacky solution that doesn’t use any upstream modules but gets the job done.
> 
> For the moment we have settled on #3, that is creating a repo here:
> 
> https://github.com/sdake/kolla-pre-ansible-2-openstack/
> 
> And installing these in the deployment system.  Once Ansible 2.0 is available, we would deprecate this model, and rely on Ansible 2.0 exclusively.
> 
> Thoughts or concerns on this approach?

I think 3 is fine. 1 is also fine, and you shouldn't be worried at all,
just make sure to include a COPYING.GPLv3 as long as the files are
included.