[openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016
doug at doughellmann.com
Fri Feb 5 19:46:04 UTC 2016
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-02-05 14:16:12 -0500:
> On 02/05/2016 01:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ryan Brown's message of 2016-02-05 12:14:34 -0500:
> >> On 02/05/2016 05:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>> Even before OpenStack had a name, our "Four Opens" principles were
> >>> created to define how we would operate as a community. The first open,
> >>> "Open Source", added the following precision: "We do not produce 'open
> >>> core' software". What does this mean in 2016 ?
> >>> Back in 2010 when OpenStack was started, this was a key difference with
> >>> the other open source cloud platform (Eucalyptus) which was following an
> >>> Open Core strategy with a crippled community edition and an "enterprise
> >>> version". OpenStack was then the property of a single entity
> >>> (Rackspace), so giving strong signals that we would never follow such a
> >>> strategy was essential to form a real community.
> >>> Fast-forward today, the open source project is driven by a non-profit
> >>> independent Foundation, which could not even do an "enterprise edition"
> >>> if it wanted to. However, member companies build "enterprise products"
> >>> on top of the Apache-licensed upstream project. And we have drivers that
> >>> expose functionality in proprietary components. So what does it mean to
> >>> "not do open core" in 2016 ? What is acceptable and what's not ? It is
> >>> time for us to refresh this.
> >>> My personal take on that is that we can draw a line in the sand for what
> >>> is acceptable as an official project in the upstream OpenStack open
> >>> source effort. It should have a fully-functional, production-grade open
> >>> source implementation. If you need proprietary software or a commercial
> >>> entity to fully use the functionality of a project or getting serious
> >>> about it, then it should not be accepted in OpenStack as an official
> >>> project. It can still live as a non-official project and even be hosted
> >>> under OpenStack infrastructure, but it should not be part of
> >>> "OpenStack". That is how I would interpret "no open core" in OpenStack
> >>> 2016.
> >>> Of course, the devil is in the details, especially around what I mean by
> >>> "fully-functional" and "production-grade". Is it just an API/stability
> >>> thing, or does performance/scalability come into account ? There will
> >>> always be some subjectivity there, but I think it's a good place to start.
> >>> Comments ?
> >> If a project isn't fully functional* then why would we accept it at all?
> >> Imagine this scenario:
> >> 1) Heat didn't exist
> >> 2) A project exactly like heat applies for OpenStack, that lets you use
> >> templates to create resources to a specification
> >> 3) BUT, if you don't buy Proprietary Enterprise Template Parsing
> >> Platform 9, a product of Shed Cat Enterpise Leopards**, you can't parse
> >> templates longer than 200 characters.
> > There's a more concrete case being considered right now that is less
> > clear to some .
> > The Poppy project provides an open source service to wrap content
> > delivery network APIs. They follow all of our other best-practices,
> > but there is apparently no practical open source CDN solution.
> > OpenCDN was mentioned, but it seems dead.
> > In the absence of any open source solution, the Poppy service is
> > only useful when connected to commercial services. The Poppy team
> > has provided drivers for several of these (I see akamai, cloudfront,
> > fastly, and maxcdn in their "providers" package). Stackalytics shows
> > the contributors on the team are mostly from Rackspace. I'm not
> > aware of Rackspace owning any of those services, though I'm sure
> > they have relationships with one more more.
> > My understanding of the "no open core" requirement is about the
> > intent of the contributor. We don't want separate community and
> > "enterprise" editions of components (services or drivers). The
> > Poppy situation doesn't seem to be a case of open washing anything,
> > or holding back features in order to sell a more advanced version.
> > It happens that for Poppy to be useful, you have to buy another
> > service for it to talk to (and to serve your data), but all of the
> > Poppy code is actually open and there are several services to choose
> > from. There is no "better" version of Poppy available for sale,
> > if you buy a PoppyCDN subscription.
> > So, is Poppy "open core"?
> Whether or not it is, I'm not sure how it is part of a Ubiquitous Open
> Source Cloud Platform. Because it only enables the use of commerical
> It's fine that it's open source software. I just don't think it's OpenStack.
I don't understand the connection you're making.
More information about the OpenStack-dev