| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-sdks - 2019-12-05 | |||
| 16:45:10 | sshnaidm | ok, let's get back to agenda then | |
| 16:45:19 | sshnaidm | are we keeping them GPL? | |
| 16:45:29 | gundalow | gtema: unsure, if you speak to mattclay in #ansible-devel he might be able to give some ideas | |
| 16:45:30 | dtantsur | can we practically re-license them? | |
| 16:45:30 | gtema | but I mean ansible-playbook will fail when there is "git rm" | |
| 16:45:37 | sshnaidm | or we start develop new in Apache2? | |
| 16:45:57 | dtantsur | then we'll need clean-room development (without looking at old ones) | |
| 16:46:07 | gtema | gundalow, ok, will ask in #ansible-devel, but this is important to verify the whole migration | |
| 16:46:36 | gtema | dtantsur: without looking will be very hard | |
| 16:46:52 | dtantsur | exactly, but that's the condition of re-licensing via rewriting | |
| 16:46:55 | gtema | and we repeat all the issues we were fixing for ages | |
| 16:47:12 | dtantsur | otherwise we need an agreement from every contributor whose code is still there | |
| 16:47:13 | sshnaidm | https://bit.ly/2OUz1Xa | |
| 16:47:16 | gtema | I know, and this is not what I would like to do | |
| 16:47:46 | dtantsur | I'd keep shared bits permissive if possible, but the modules themselves probably have to be GPL | |
| 16:47:50 | gtema | this is terrible, even if one has changed a typo | |
| 16:48:00 | sshnaidm | are there licenses experts here? :) | |
| 16:48:17 | pabelanger | sshnaidm: yes | |
| 16:48:34 | sshnaidm | can we write new modules in different licenses? | |
| 16:48:41 | sshnaidm | I mean not in GPL | |
| 16:48:54 | sshnaidm | the goal is to deprecate old ones | |
| 16:49:06 | gundalow | git log --pretty=format:"%an%x09" lib/ansible/modules/cloud/openstack | sort | uniq | wc -l ----> 157 | |
| 16:49:25 | gundalow | (may be some duplicates, though that's a lot of people to get sign off from) | |
| 16:50:05 | sshnaidm | wow | |
| 16:50:17 | sshnaidm | should we ask all 155 people to agree? | |
| 16:50:41 | gundalow | IANAL, though I if one person doesn't respond you can't do it | |
| 16:50:42 | sshnaidm | I don't think it's doable at all | |
| 16:51:02 | sshnaidm | gundalow, but it's for re-licensing, I'm talking about new modules develop | |
| 16:51:20 | sshnaidm | I think it's kinda gray area here.. | |
| 16:51:43 | dtantsur | it's grey indeed. how to distinguish new development from copy-pasting in case of very similar code? | |
| 16:51:59 | sshnaidm | no idea, need license experts opinion :) | |
| 16:52:24 | sshnaidm | although I hope it won't be copy paste | |
| 16:52:48 | dtantsur | IANAL, only relaying what I've previously heard | |
| 16:52:50 | sshnaidm | we don't need to copy paste, we just have them available.. | |
| 16:53:26 | sshnaidm | mnaser mentioned some license-... maillist, maybe worth to ask there | |
| 16:53:38 | mnaser | legal-discuss :) | |
| 16:53:42 | dtantsur | ^^^ | |
| 16:53:44 | sshnaidm | mnaser, yes! :) | |
| 16:54:04 | mnaser | and yes i think you need to get all 155 people to agree AFAIK. but im not a license expert | |
| 16:54:21 | dtantsur | the problem as I understand it, if you're familiar with old code, you won't be able to claim you wrote the new code without taking from it. | |
| 16:54:28 | sshnaidm | ok, but modules that don't have a parallel I think we can start with Apache2 | |
| 16:54:29 | dtantsur | I mean, legally claim, we all here believe you :) | |
| 16:54:49 | dtantsur | probably? I'd really bring it to legal-discuss | |
| 16:54:54 | gtema | ok, time is running out. Summary? | |
| 16:55:03 | dtantsur | gtema: we had a few #agreed | |
| 16:55:09 | gtema | I would also vote for raising | |
| 16:55:17 | gtema | in legal-discuss | |
| 16:55:21 | dtantsur | #action sshnaidm To raise the licensing topic on legal-discuss | |
| 16:55:23 | dtantsur | correct? :) | |
| 16:55:23 | sshnaidm | #action to figure out which license to use for new developed modules in openstack collection, | |
| 16:55:32 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, ack | |
| 16:55:34 | dtantsur | you forgot <who> | |
| 16:55:35 | dtantsur | #undo | |
| 16:55:36 | openstack | Removing item from minutes: #action to figure out which license to use for new developed modules in openstack collection, | |
| 16:55:44 | dtantsur | okay, now we have one item | |
| 16:55:59 | sshnaidm | great | |
| 16:55:59 | dtantsur | anything else? | |
| 16:56:03 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/openstacksdk master: tox: Keeping going with docs https://review.opendev.org/692503 | |
| 16:56:14 | sshnaidm | wanted to ask about versioning of modules | |
| 16:56:27 | sshnaidm | I don't think we need branches as openstack releases, right? | |
| 16:56:57 | sshnaidm | should we just keep them compatible as much as possible? in case we have differences in openstacksdk for example | |
| 16:57:33 | sshnaidm | any strong opinions about it? | |
| 16:57:50 | dtantsur | I guess we need to match ansible? | |
| 16:57:56 | gtema | I think current version checking in modules is sufficient. So no need for openstack releases from my POV | |
| 16:58:01 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, why? | |
| 16:58:24 | dtantsur | to allow combining them as gundalow mentioned? | |
| 16:58:42 | dtantsur | SDK has stable branches, OSC too (?) | |
| 16:58:46 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, sorry, I missed it, to combine? | |
| 16:58:48 | dtantsur | it feels like the modules could | |
| 16:58:50 | gtema | at least "API" for the collections structure need to be kept in sync with Ansible | |
| 16:58:59 | sshnaidm | gtema, yeah, that's right | |
| 16:59:04 | dtantsur | sshnaidm: a distribution of ansible with all collections | |
| 16:59:08 | dtantsur | right | |
| 16:59:44 | sshnaidm | yeah, I think we agree on keeping them compatible with ansible | |
| 16:59:55 | sshnaidm | otherwise it won't work :) | |
| 17:00:01 | dtantsur | exactly :) | |
| 17:00:14 | dtantsur | I guess we need to decide about stable branches | |
| 17:00:16 | dtantsur | probably next time | |
| 17:00:17 | sshnaidm | #agreed to keep modules compatible with Ansible collections API | |
| 17:00:26 | sshnaidm | dtantsur, yep | |
| 17:00:34 | sshnaidm | ok, thanks all for participation! | |
| 17:00:42 | sshnaidm | next Thu same time same place | |
| 17:00:44 | dtantsur | thanks, and thanks elmiko for tolerating us! | |
| 17:00:56 | dtantsur | #endmeeting | |
| 17:00:57 | gtema | otherwise it is too silent :D | |
| 17:00:58 | openstack | Meeting ended Thu Dec 5 17:00:56 2019 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | |
| 17:00:59 | openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2019/api_sig.2019-12-05-16.00.html | |
| 17:01:00 | openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2019/api_sig.2019-12-05-16.00.txt | |
| 17:01:01 | openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2019/api_sig.2019-12-05-16.00.log.html | |
| 17:01:20 | sshnaidm | yeah, we fixed that) | |
| 17:02:46 | elmiko | dtantsur: gladly =) | |
| 17:04:10 | gundalow | Good to chat everybody, please do shout out if there is anything else | |
| 17:04:22 | gtema | thanks gundalow | |
| 17:36:46 | gundalow | dtantsur|afk: sshnaidm another option could be `redhat.openstack`. I think this comes down to how many OpenStack Collections you think there maybe | |
| 17:39:45 | sshnaidm | gundalow, mm.. but our projects are community wide, not limited to redhat | |
| 17:47:41 | gundalow | sshnaidm: nod, that's a fair point | |
| 18:04:23 | mordred | yeah - I would hope we only have one openstack collection | |
| 18:04:33 | mordred | also - sorry I missed the meeting - I have plague today | |
| 18:26:11 | elmiko | hope you feel better soon mordred =) | |
| 18:26:50 | mordred | elmiko: thanks! nothing says the holidays like laying around groaning | |