On Fri, Feb 05 2016, Jay Pipes wrote: > However, even though it's not the Poppy team's fault, I think the fact that > the > Poppy project user's only choice when using Poppy is to use a non-free backend > disqualifies Poppy from being an OpenStack project. The fact that the Poppy > team follows the four Opens and genuinely wants to align with the OpenStack > development methodology and processes is admirable and we should certainly > encourage that behaviour, including welcoming Poppy into our CI platform for > as > much as we can (given the obvious limitations around functional testing of > Poppy). However, at the end of the day, I agree with Sean that this non-free > restriction inherent in Poppy means it should not be included in the > openstack/governance projects.yaml file as an "official" OpenStack project.
This is the kind of situation that makes Debian created a 'contrib' section in its repository, a middle-ground between 'main' (free software) and 'non-free' (non-free software): "The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian distribution, but which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function. Every package in contrib must comply with the DFSG." People writing software that goes into 'contrib' did not write non-free software, but their software depends on non-free software, which makes them useless to run an complete free system. It seems OpenStack is finding itself in the same situation here. It maybe too soon – or even unwanted – to have an equivalent "contrib" section, but the familiarity of the situation strikes me. Cheers, -- Julien Danjou ;; Free Software hacker ;; https://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
