Open Stack

On 2021-03-13 10:28:37 +0100 (+0100), Radosław Piliszek wrote:
[...]
> And a related (and very relevant) project using Ansible - Zuul -
> includes a note about partial GPL [3]. A quick search [4] reveals
> a lot of places that could be violating GPL in OpenStack (e.g. in
> Ironic, base CI jobs) if we followed this linking logic.
[...]

The reason parts of Zuul are GPL is that they actually include forks
of some components of Ansible itself (for example, to be able to
thoroughly redirect command outputs to a console stream). Zuul
isolates the execution of those parts of its source in order to
avoid causing the entire service to be GPL.

Are you suggesting that files shipped in Ironic's deliverable repos
directly import (in a Python sense) these GPL files? Nothing in the
https://opendev.org/zuul/zuul-jobs repository is GPL. I've never
seen any credible argument that merely executing a GPL program makes
the calling program a derivative work. Also, if the Zuul jobs in
project repositories really were GPL, that should still be fine
according to our governance:

    Projects run as part of the OpenStack Infrastructure (in order
    to produce OpenStack software) may be licensed under any
    OSI-approved license.

    This includes tools that are run with or on OpenStack projects
    only during validation or testing phases of development (e.g.,
    a source code linter).

    https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html

Anyway, we have a separate mailing list for such topics:

    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss

Let's please not jump to conclusions when it comes to software
licenses. It's not as cut and dried as you might expect.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210313/f4e04bf2/attachment.sig>