cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Chan <will.c...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: License question
Date Fri, 18 May 2012 19:59:42 GMT
The existing EULA and logo should be removed.  This is just one of those TODO we did not get
to yet but we have already begun to setup processes to removing that along with rest of the
potential thirdparty incompatible libraries CloudStack still be may using at this moment.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:04 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: License question

Hi Robert, 

If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers. 

The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1

And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version, and should be removed.


If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix licensing stuff. 

--David



On May 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, but....
> 
> As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released 3.0.2 tarball I stumbled
across a license issue. Having already built 3.0.1 packages in OBS I might be in trouble already,
but I didn't read it all and figured I'd ask some questions first.
> 
> The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and appears to be geared
toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around to find a page [1] where it clearly states
that 3.0 is licensed under GPLv3 and 3.1 will be licensed under ASLv2.

> 
> In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix proprietary software
program in object code form distributed hereunder." which would appear to be in conflict with
GPLv3 at least, and based on my interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3.
> 
> Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care whether the code
if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention of starting a political flame war or
discussion about license choice. I am concerned about this from a packagers point of view
only.
> 
> - It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source code, all branches?
> 
> - Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that clearly states
the license that covers the tree?
> 
> - Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF infrastructure?
> 
> - How does the license change affect the master branch? After all, calling something
3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control system, or will this be date/commit based,
i.e. as of commit X the master branch is considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with
the creation of the 3.1 branch)
> 
> - Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts like this from
the code base? It would be difficult for community contributors to feel confident/comfortable
in sending submit request to remove artifacts like this from the code base.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert
> 
> 
> [1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html
> 
> -- 
> Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
> Tech Lead
> rjschwei@suse.com
> rschweik@ca.ibm.com
> 781-464-8147

Mime
View raw message