I'm +1 to requiring terms and resources for prop. applications. This will effectively funnel our new onboarding efforts of these vendors into the juju 2.0 path, and start them off using best practices - which will really lend a hand to the robustness of their deployment (see: behind the corp firewall) As I just went through several rounds of this with our own firewall setup to onboard a vendor into OIL. Additionally it removes a barrier to entry as many of these apps are behind registration walls or pay walls (needs citation). Anywhere that we can ease use for our consumers I am a loud +1.
Further more, terms ensures their IP concerns are being handled appropriately. You don't agree to pay? you don't get to play. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:28 AM Mark Shuttleworth <m...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On 26/05/16 00:21, Tom Barber wrote: > > > > I think Terms are good but terms for open source is overkill. > > > > For example if I apt install openjdk I wouldn't accept any terms > > during the install process, but if I apt install oracle-jdk I would. > > > > > > Agreed, no acknowledgement of terms should be needed for FLOSS charms or > resources. > > Mark > > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > -- Juju Charmer Canonical Group Ltd. Ubuntu - Linux for human beings | www.ubuntu.com Juju - The fastest way to model your service | www.jujucharms.com
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju