On 09:35 Jun 14, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > > > A few months ago we had the discussion about what "no open core" means in > > 2016, in the context of the Poppy team candidacy. With our reading at the > > time we ended up rejecting Poppy partly because it was interfacing with > > proprietary technologies. However, I think what we originally wanted to > > ensure with this rule was that no specific organization would use the > > OpenStack open source code as crippled bait to sell their specific > > proprietary add-on. > > I saw the problem with Poppy was that since it depended on a proprietary > product, there was no way to run any meaningful testing with it, since you > can’t simply download that product into your testing environment. Had there > been an equivalent free software implementation, I think many would have not > had as strong an objection in including Poppy.
Yup, I spoke loud and repeated this in the discussion many times. There was no open source reference implementation to base the API off of, just a proprietary solution. I feel starting that direction with any new project in some open source space where we want multiple solutions to plug in is just a disaster waiting to happen. -- 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
