Re: [TAC-public] ODL Licensing (EPL) and ONAP's (Apache 2.0)
Lefevre, Catherine <catherine.lefevre@...>
Let me provide additional clarifications since I was not clear in my previous request.
If some future release, ONAP CCSDK project needed to fork an ODL component in order to integrate it into ONAP. For example, suppose that we wanted to swap out OpenDaylight’s AAA module in ONAP for one that is integrated with ONAP AAF (we don’t have to right now, since ODL’s AAA supports plugins, but suppose this turns out to be needed in a future release). It would be nice if we had the flexibility to just create a fork of that component and distribute it as part of ONAP. However, if we did that, that fork would have to be licensed under EPL – not Apache – since it is derived from EPL code.
To conclude, the purpose of this request would be to seek if there is any opportunity to harmonize the licenses under LFN.
Concerning the issue raised by Steve Winslow, additional work will be required from the ONAP community since DLUX has been forked, package name should be pointed to ONAP and not ODL.
No action for the ODL community.
Many thanks & regards
From: TAC@... [mailto:TAC@...] On Behalf Of Edward Warnicke
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 3:12 PM
Cc: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>; Close, Pierre <pierre.close@...>; tsc <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [TAC-public] ODL Licensing (EPL) and ONAP's (Apache 2.0)
Question: Why not simply consume the ODL binary artifacts rather than forking the source code?
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:53 AM Catherine LEFEVRE <catherine.lefevre@...> wrote: