1. posterid:557963
  2. Messages

Re: [TAC-public] ODL Licensing (EPL) and ONAP's (Apache 2.0)

Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
 

Thank you for the explanation :)

+1 for flexibility… at one point I recall the AAA component being swappable at binary level (ie, you just plugged in a different implementation).  If that’s no longer true, I’d suggest working with ODL to get it true again :)

The only thing worse than a fork is not being able to have one in a pinch.  ODL was designed to be very modular, so it should be possible for you guys to just keep code for you own AAA component, and plug that in with existing binaries.  And of course, your ODL plugins can be licensed any way ONAP wants.

Be careful not to misunderstand the weak copy left of EPL… its not contaminating.  If you write a new ODL plugin you can license it however you want… its only if you change existing ODL code that those changes must remain under EPL.

The reason I’m looking for other solutions here is that because each contributor retains the copyright to their own work, relicensing, while not impossible, can be a very protracted and expensive undertaking, its not as simple as the ODL TSC (or even the LFN board) making a decision to relicense ODL code: you need permission from each copyright holder in that code.

One other avenue to explore is that the board *does* have the ability to grant you waivers on this issue if memory serves for the use of EPL code in ONAP.  

Ed


On October 24, 2018 at 9:56:16 AM, Catherine LEFEVRE (catherine.lefevre@...) wrote:

Ed, Daniel,

 

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

Catherine

 

From: TAC@... [mailto:TAC@...] On Behalf Of Edward Warnicke
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 3:12 PM
To: TAC@...
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?

 

Ed

 

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:53 AM Catherine LEFEVRE <catherine.lefevre@...> wrote:

Good morning Dan,

 

Thanks a lot for your prompt feedback.

I will check with the concerned parties today and will let you know.

 

Best regards

Catherine

 

From: TAC@... [mailto:TAC@...] On Behalf Of Daniel Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 2:48 PM
To: TAC <TAC@...>
Cc: Steve Winslow <swinslow@...>; Close, Pierre <pierre.close@...>; tsc <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [TAC-public] ODL Licensing (EPL) and ONAP's (Apache 2.0)

 

Hello Catherine,

 

Thanks for bringing this to ODL's attention.

 

Would it be possible for you and the other relevant ONAP/LF folks to join ODL's TSC meeting this week (Thurs 9AM PT) to brief the community on the issue and start discussing possible plans?

 

 

I've CC'd the ODL TSC list to go ahead and put this on everyone's radar.

 

Thanks,
Daniel

 

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:56 AM Catherine LEFEVRE <catherine.lefevre@...> wrote:

Good morning TAC team,

 

I would like to discuss the following item with you.

 

As you might know, ONAP is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

 

During our last ONAP License review with Steven Winslow (LF Legal representative), we have got the feedback that ONAP source code should not contain any ODL source code

since ODL is released under EPL i.e. Weak Copy left.

 

It generates some concerns since we would like to avoid to make a fork of ODL then have to put ODL source code outside LF repositories on github in order to consume it back to ONAP L.

 

For the ONAP Casablanca release, ONAP TSC will be requested to approve a waiver.

Nevertheless, would it be possible to address this concern at the TAC team level as a medium/long term plan?

 

Many thanks & regards

Catherine

 

Catherine Lefèvre

AVP Software Development & Engineering

 

AT&T Labs – Network Cloud & Infrastructure

D2 Platform & Systems Development

ECOMP/RUBY/SPP-NEAM-Appl. Servers/SIA

ONAP TSC Chair

 

 

Phone: +32 2 418 49 22

Mobile: +32 475 77 36 73

catherine.lefevre@...

 

TEXTING and DRIVING… It Can Wait

AT&T

BUROGEST OFFICE PARK SA

Avenue des Dessus-de-Lives, 2

5101 Loyers (Namur)

Belgium

 

 

NOTE: This email (or its attachments) contains information belonging to the sender, which may be confidential. proprietary and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the content of this is strictly forbidden. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify the sender identified above

 

Join {TSC@lists.opendaylight.org to automatically receive all group messages.