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

Daniel Farrell

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:57 PM Robert Varga <nite@...> wrote:
On 24/10/2018 18:41, Phil Robb wrote:
> On October 24, 2018 at 9:56:16 AM, Catherine LEFEVRE
> (catherine.lefevre@... <mailto:catherine.lefevre@...>)
> wrote:


>> 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.

I think this case deserves thorough TAC-level analysis.

We (ODL) have discontinued support for DLUX due to there not being
anyone in our community to support it.

Yet, since ONAP has chosen to fork it, it would seem there are resources
within the larger LFN community to support it.

I believe it is vitally important for both the TAC and ODL TSC to
understand ONAP's reasons for forking the codebase rather than picking
up maintenance/development of DLUX in its original place (ODL).

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. This is the first I've heard about ONAP forking DLUX, or talking about forking any part of ODL.

Catherine, instead of the complex and inefficient mess I think it would be to try to maintain a fork of DLUX (or any other ODL project) in ONAP, I strongly recommend working with upstream ODL to support a single shared implementation.

As Robert said, DLUX was discontinued upstream because the current active ODL contributors don't use it, were not getting value from it, and therefore were not maintaining it. It sounds like there are people in ONAP that are getting value from DLUX, in which case we would love to have them chip in to maintain it upstream.

I'd be happy to work with ONAP or relevant companies to facilitate this.



TSC mailing list

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.