cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <>
Subject Re: re-implement clvm
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:56:28 GMT

On 07/31/2012 09:48 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> I'd be happy to try more if I had access to any contact info.  As it
> is, things in the surrounding code have changed enough that a bit of
> re-factoring would need to be done even if there were permission.
> My hunch is that unless he's switched roles, once the new version is
> released he may come out of the woodwork wondering why that thing he
> has a need for and developed is gone.

After writing the last RBD implementation this CLVM seems trivial.

A lot of code is still in there and looking at the commit where it got 
removed it wont be that much work.

The problem (and I'm not a licensing expert) is that if I would 
implement CLVM again it would look a lot like the original code, do we 
have to refer to the old author for that?

I'm assuming here that we won't be able to contact the original author, 
but we want to keep the CLVM functionality for 4.0.


> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:15 PM, David Nalley <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Simon Weller <> wrote:
>>> I recall David Nalley collecting a Cloudstack/ ICLA from rommer for
this contribution in Q4 of last year.
>>> David,
>>> Does the ICLA contain any contact information not available on the old cloudstack-devel
>>> - Si
>> Simon,
>> It does. I passed on the publicly available information about Rommer
>> (e.g. the email address he submitted patches from)
>> To briefly outline the steps we went through:
>> We had multiple people try and contact Rommer via email.
>> We talked via email with one of his coworkers (successfully).
>> Alena, whose native tongue is Russian, tried reaching out, as well as
>> searching for him on the Russian analogue of Facebook.
>> Citrix had some European counsel try and make contact.
>> None of these attempts have resulted in us acquiring the form giving
>> us permission to relicense his contribution from GPLv3 to ASLv2 - and
>> thus we ended up needing to pull it. I'd love to get this back in
>> though, if people want to try more.
>> --David

View raw message