Open Stack

a quick update: the latest release of Rally (
https://pypi.org/project/rally/1.4.0/ ) doesn't include morph dependency

пн, 4 февр. 2019 г. в 19:57, Andrey Kurilin <andr.kurilin at gmail.com>:

> Hi stackers!
>
> Thanks for raising this topic.
> I recently removed morph dependency (
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/634741 ) and I hope to release a new
> version of Rally as soon as possible.
>
> пн, 4 февр. 2019 г. в 17:14, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org>:
>
>> On 2019-02-04 14:42:04 +0100 (+0100), Ilya Shakhat wrote:
>> > I am experimenting with automatic verification of code licenses of
>> > OpenStack projects and see that one of Rally dependencies has GPL3
>> > license
>> [...]
>>
>> To start off, it looks like the license for morph is already known
>> to the Rally developers, based on the inline comment for it at
>>
>> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/rally/tree/requirements.txt?id=3625758#n10
>> (so hopefully this is no real surprise).
>>
>> The source of truth for our licensing policies, as far as projects
>> governed by the OpenStack Technical Committee are concerned (which
>> openstack/rally is), can be found here:
>>
>>     https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html
>>
>> It has a carve out for "tools that are run with or on OpenStack
>> projects only during validation or testing phases of development"
>> which "may be licensed under any OSI-approved license" and since
>> the README.rst for Rally states it's a "tool & framework that allows
>> one to write simple plugins and combine them in complex tests
>> scenarios that allows to perform all kinds of testing" it probably
>> meets those criteria.
>>
>> As for concern that a Python application which imports another
>> Python library at runtime inherits its license and so becomes
>> derivative of that work, that has been the subject of much
>> speculation. In particular, whether a Python import counts as
>> "dynamic linking" in GPL 3.0 section 1 is debatable:
>>
>> https://bytes.com/topic/python/answers/41019-python-gpl
>>
>> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1487/how-does-the-gpls-linking-restriction-apply-when-using-a-proprietary-library-wi
>>
>> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/87446/using-a-gplv3-python-module-will-my-entire-project-have-to-be-gplv3-licensed
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40492518/is-an-import-in-python-considered-to-be-dynamic-linking
>>
>> I'm most definitely not a lawyer, but from what I've been able to
>> piece together it's the combination of rally+morph which potentially
>> becomes GPLv3-licensed when distributed, not the openstack/rally
>> source code itself. This is really more of a topic for the
>> legal-discuss mailing list, however, so I am cross-posting my reply
>> there for completeness.
>>
>> To readers only of the legal-discuss ML, the original post can be
>> found archived here:
>>
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002356.html
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey Kurilin.
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey Kurilin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190205/b421a8b0/attachment.html>