Open Stack

On 05/02/16 21:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
>On 02/05/2016 02:16 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>On 02/05/2016 01:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>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
>>services.
>>
>>It's fine that it's open source software. I just don't think it's OpenStack.
>
>So, I've read through this ML thread a couple times now. I see 
>arguments on both sides of the coin here.

ditto

>I'm no fan of open core. Never have been. So it irks me that Poppy 
>can't work with any non-proprietary backend. But, as others have said, 
>that isn't the Poppy team's fault.
>
>However, even though it's not the Poppy team's fault, I think the fact 
>that the Poppy project user's only choice when using Poppy is to use a 
>non-free backend disqualifies Poppy from being an OpenStack project. 
>The fact that the Poppy team follows the four Opens and genuinely 
>wants to align with the OpenStack development methodology and 
>processes is admirable and we should certainly encourage that 
>behaviour, including welcoming Poppy into our CI platform for as much 
>as we can (given the obvious limitations around functional testing of 
>Poppy). However, at the end of the day, I agree with Sean that this 
>non-free restriction inherent in Poppy means it should not be included 
>in the openstack/governance projects.yaml file as an "official" 
>OpenStack project.

After having put enough (I hope) thoughts on this over the weekend, I think I
agree with the above. They way I put it is:

What would be my solution, as a cloud provider, if I'd like to have a cloud
that relies only on open source technologies?

If you will, we could also add: What would distributions of OpenStack recommend
as a default driver?

This being said, I'd like to throw another question in the mix (just for the
sake of discussion and because I like to contradict myself).

Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being
maintained) even if that solution is terrible?

I guess my question is: When do we start considering a project to be safe from
an open source perspective? Because, having support for 1 opensource technology
doesn't mean it provides enough (or good) open source ways to deploy the
software. If the only supported open solution is *terrible* then deployers would
be left with only commercial solutions to choose from.

I'll comment back on the review but I wanted to get feedback from other folks in
this thread.

Cheers,
Flavio

>I've left this comment on the review accordingly.
>
>Best,
>-jay
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160208/3c1eaa1a/attachment.pgp>