Open Stack

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Amit Gandhi <amit.gandhi at rackspace.com>
wrote:

> Poppy intends to be an abstraction API over the various CDNs available.
> We do not want to be in the business of building a CDN itself.
>

Specific to the Poppy discussion, I think this is another point that makes
Poppy not part of OpenStack: none of the services it wants to abstract are
part of OpenStack.  I came up with another example of a project that takes
the Compute API and translates it to gce or aws calls but we actually have
this situation with the ESX hypervisor driver and multiple Cinder backends
to commercial products.  But in those cases, the project is otherwise
useful to an OpenStack deployment that does not include those products.

Now for the actual thread topic of open core and non-free backends.  We
seem to be haggling over the declaration of one or more specific projects
as 'open core-like', where the real discussion is in defining the general
terms.  I have always thought of 'open core' in the Eucalyptus sense like
what partially spurred the creation of Nova in the first place.  The same
entity controlled both an 'open source' project and a commercial product
based on it, where certain features/capabilities were only available in the
non-free version.

What I think is important here is 'the same entity'.  This is where we need
to be concerned, specifically with organizations that attempt to extract
value from OpenStack yet hinder our advancement in return by holding back
contributions.  And this may be the one place where the 'viral' nature of
the GPL would have been useful to us in a business relationship. [[NO I do
not intend to open that can'o'worms, only to illustrate our lack of that
built-in mechanism to lessen the impact of open core]]

dt


-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160216/bb60a6c4/attachment.html>