Open Stack

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:07:23PM +0000, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > So, what are the steps forward here? Requiring a non-free library like
> > drbdmanage is not acceptable AFAIU,
> >
> 
> This is pretty much where things went dead at the summit - there were
> various degrees of unacceptability (I was personally bothered by the the
> parts that can't be freely redistributed, rather than free software per se,
> but that still leaves a large number of problem cases. Few people were
> willing to seriously consider pulling 1/3 of the cinder drivers out, and
> there was not AFAICT a firm conclusion.

Honestly, my opinion is it's just fine as it is, and the fact that this
license has changed doesn't make any difference.

For most external storage there is _something_ that the deployer needs
to do outside of install and configure OpenStack to get things set up
and working. Whether that is setting up an physical array or downloading
and installing a client library on their own - that's just part of the
requirements for whatever solution they chose to deploy.

It would be great if things were all open and an all in one
download->install->run solution, but that's not reality and not what
everyone is looking for out of OpenStack. So be it.

Sean