Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

Erlon, There are exceptions to this rule ((e.g. libraries used for testing), but the general result of the thread is that all python libraries imported by the drivers must conform to OpenStack licensing. That includes Apache and several other licenses (e.g. MIT, LGPL). Alon On Tue, Sep

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Alon Marx wrote: > > From deployment stand point the desire is to have any piece of code that > is required on an openstack installation would be easily downloadable. > And redistributable please. -- *Avishay Traeger, PhD* *System

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Alon Marx wrote: > > Thank you ALL for clearing up this issue. > > > > To sum up the discussion (not going into too many details): > > From legal stand point, if one uses python libraries they should be part > > of

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

Alon Marx wrote: > Thank you ALL for clearing up this issue. > > To sum up the discussion (not going into too many details): > From legal stand point, if one uses python libraries they should be part > of the community or confirming with the relevant licenses >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

Thank you ALL for clearing up this issue. To sum up the discussion (not going into too many details): >From legal stand point, if one uses python libraries they should be part of the community or confirming with the relevant licenses ( http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html).

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 13 September 2016 at 06:44, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 09/09/2016 11:12 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> I don't care so much whether your CLI or API proxy in open or closed >> source, but I really do care if I can create a distribution, even a >> novel one, with that

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 2016-09-12 23:44:10 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: [...] > I don't understand how you can have this stance while tolerating the > existence of such things as the VMware driver. That software (ESXi) > absolutely requires a license to use or distribute. If it has to be installed on the

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/09/2016 11:12 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 9 September 2016 at 17:22, Ben Swartzlander > wrote: On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Sep 9, 2016 18:13, "Duncan Thomas" > So my issue is not with any of those things, it is that I believe anybody should be able to put together a distribution of openstack, that just works, which any supported backend, without needed to negotiate licensing deals with vendors, and without having

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Sep 9, 2016 08:26, "Ben Swartzlander" wrote: > > On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> >> On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 9 September 2016 at 17:22, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in >> the IRC discussion on this subject, you've summarised my concern very >> well. I'm not

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith > wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley > wrote: they

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 2016-09-08 23:41:42 +0300 (+0300), Duncan Thomas wrote: > Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in the > IRC discussion on this subject, you've summarised my concern very well. I'm > not convinced that these support tools need to be open source, but they >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > > > they should be able to simply install it and its free dependencies >> and get a working system that can communicate with

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-09-08 09:32:20 +0100 (+0100), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > That policy is referring to libraries (ie, python modules that we'd > > actually "import" at the python level), while the list above seems to be > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 2016-09-08 09:32:20 +0100 (+0100), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > That policy is referring to libraries (ie, python modules that we'd > actually "import" at the python level), while the list above seems to be > referring to external command line tools that we merely invoke from the > python code.

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:24:09AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Avishay Traeger wrote: > > > There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to > > > communicate with the storage. 3 others that

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/06/2016 11:27 AM, Alon Marx wrote: I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not mistaken) with just a small piece of code in the community while keeping most of the driver code closed. Since

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:24:09AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Avishay Traeger wrote: > > There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to > > communicate with the storage. 3 others that I've come across recently: > > > > * EMC VNX: requires Navisphere CLI v7.32 or higher >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

Avishay Traeger wrote: > There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to > communicate with the storage. 3 others that I've come across recently: > > * EMC VNX: requires Navisphere CLI v7.32 or higher > * Hitachi storage volume driver: requires RAID Manager Ver 01-32-03/01

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to communicate with the storage. 3 others that I've come across recently: - EMC VNX: requires Navisphere CLI v7.32 or higher - Hitachi storage volume driver: requires RAID Manager Ver 01-32-03/01 or later for VSP

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 9/7/2016 8:47 AM, John Griffith wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Alon Marx > wrote: I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Alon Marx wrote: > I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. > Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not > mistaken) ​You're mistaken, Cinder didn't exist at that time... but it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On 09/06/2016 05:27 PM, Alon Marx wrote: > I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. > Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm > not mistaken) with just a small piece of code in the community while > keeping most of the driver code closed.

[openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not mistaken) with just a small piece of code in the community while keeping most of the driver code closed. Since then the code has grown, but we kept with