D-bus model proposal for pay for access features - LicenseService at OpenBMC

[Patrick Williams]

On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 07:29:27AM -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:

> So you're going to add some custom PLDM commands to offload this to your
> host firmware.  How is this helpful to the rest of the community?
> Again, why do I want to take on the maintenance risk and legal risk
> associated with this feature?  Why would anyone else in the community?

I had someone ask me offline if this mean that only features that have
applicability to more than one community member would be acceptable.
This was not my intention by saying this.  I was speaking specifically
about *this* feature.

Originally this proposal was that the license server would be a way that
multiple parties could collaborate on it.  Moving it to a custom PLDM
command set diminishes that.

My overall point is that this proposal is, as currently presented and in
my opinion, a net-negative for the project.

In a very general sense, as long as a contribution is going to be
maintained, the contribution follows our processes, and the contribution
isn't considered a bad idea for a variety of maintainer-determined
reasons*, we should be accepting of features that might only be
applicable to one party.  It isn't the wide-spread applicability, or lack
there of, that is an issue.

(*) I'm leaving a lot of wiggle room in that statement because I don't
    want someone to interpret this to mean "Patrick says any code we're
    going to maintain should be acceptable".  It is entirely reasonable
    for maintainers to say: this is not a direction we want to go.  

-- 
Patrick Williams
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20231006/fd2137cf/attachment.sig>