-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/02/2013 11:38 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On 07/02/2013 02:33 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> It appears I am alone in having concerns about this so I would go
> ahead and request the project license as you proposed.
FWIW, you can *always* figure I have concern about using non-FLOSS
tools in an open source project. I like learning from history and
Bottom line is, if people like us (and our engineering and product
managers) don't step up to the line to deliver open solutions for
our development needs, then we continue to fall behind
closed-but-ready-today solutions in the drive toward deliverable
Every decision to purchase a closed solution instead of writing or
fixing an open solution hurts the entire ecosystem. It's behavior
we can expect at the corporate layer, but it shouldn't push its way
up to the community project layer.
The choice here, as I understand it, is for Liran & his team to buy a
license so that they are the only ones to have access to this tool, or
to request a site license for developers of oVirt so that anyone in
the project has access.
In the former case, we avoid the risk that our build or test processes
depend on this tool, but lose the potential benefit to other community
members to have the use of this tool. Apparently there is not, at this
time, an equivalent open source tool.
I think requesting a project license, and then being wary not to
depend on this tool in any way to be able to participate in the
project, is an acceptable middle ground.
Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----