On 07:57 Feb 05, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> > wrote: > > > My personal take on that is that we can draw a line in the sand for what > > is acceptable as an official project in the upstream OpenStack open source > > effort. It should have a fully-functional, production-grade open source > > implementation. If you need proprietary software or a commercial entity to > > fully use the functionality of a project or getting serious about it, then > > it should not be accepted in OpenStack as an official project. It can still > > live as a non-official project and even be hosted under OpenStack > > infrastructure, but it should not be part of "OpenStack". That is how I > > would interpret "no open core" in OpenStack 2016. > > > > Should we host projects that have no hope of becoming official projects due > to this sort of criteria? Would we host GPL-only projects under openstack/?
With previous threads complaining about low on infra resources to help with stable releases, I'd actually say no we shouldn't host them. We're already low with the sunsetting of a big public cloud. -- Mike Perez __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
