Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

First let me just say that I find nothing more infuriating than “software licensing.” We burn so much effort on this, when all we want to do is share the code to help others. I agree with Joe, I thought the agreement was stuff in “contrib” wouldn’t need license, specific formatting, test,

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/19/15 10:40 PM, Joe Topjian wrote: > Unless there's a reason why we *can't* do something like that (I have no > idea why, but I never assume anything when it comes to things like > licensing :) then I'm in favor of updating the README to state

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

I agree with the repo being licensed and everything in it being inherited, unless otherwise specified. Thanks for the quick movement on this, everyone! On 11/20/15 11:13 AM, JJ Asghar wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/19/15 10:40 PM, Joe Topjian wrote: Unless

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

I am confused! Are we asking for short license notice at the top of the contributions as Tom mentioned or just this global one? No preference at this moment but we should do things right from the beginning. Edgar On 11/20/15, 9:13 AM, "JJ Asghar" wrote: >-BEGIN PGP

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/20/15 1:07 PM, Edgar Magana wrote: > I am confused! Are we asking for short license notice at the top of > the contributions as Tom mentioned or just this global one? The best way to describe it is this: osops-tools-contrib, defaults to

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

+1 for the "unless otherwise stated" bit. I seem to recall some non-standard requirements from the likes of HP. Apache should be a good default though. -Erik On Nov 19, 2015 11:31 PM, "Matt Fischer" wrote: > Is there a reason why we can't license the entire repo with

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

Thanks, JJ! It looks like David Wahlstrom submitted a script and there's a question about license. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247823/ Though contributions to contrib do not have to follow a certain coding style, can be very lax on error handling, etc, should they at least mention a

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

Is there a reason why we can't license the entire repo with Apache2 and if you want to contribute you agree to that? Otherwise it might become a bit of a nightmare. Or maybe at least do "Apache2 unless otherwise stated"? On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Joe Topjian wrote: >

Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

Unless there's a reason why we *can't* do something like that (I have no idea why, but I never assume anything when it comes to things like licensing :) then I'm in favor of updating the README to state "Your code will be licensed under Apache 2 unless you mention otherwise." On Thu, Nov 19, 2015

[Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] tools-contrib is open for business!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hey everyone, I just want to announce that tools-contrib[1] is now open for submissions. Please take a moment to read the README[2] to get yourself familiar with it. I'm hoping to see many scripts and tools start to trickle in. Remember, by