[openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016
flavio at redhat.com
Mon Feb 8 13:54:06 UTC 2016
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
>>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.
>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"
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
>I've left this comment on the review accordingly.
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev