Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5018386C.4000400@widodh.nl>
References: 
 <CALFpzo7CrLYLL56cfznYfB=2YYpGJpb5P44y2JETnd=MzLB78w@mail.gmail.com>
 <874101609.3617181.1343761559431.JavaMail.root@ena.com>
 <CAKprHVbQKYCSCE5wSoTj4zYdJBtjYGkHxX0tDpg5Wm2XfYGp_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALFpzo5vKm1hSqEqrWSJUccQ0oJ03y4CMnQ0O+Hx7hqpQ6bbUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5018386C.4000400@widodh.nl>
From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:12:12 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAKprHVbU65b0+rFGCbp4RsgtfZ6NBLqDPaqhJ7sYC_Dd5+BprQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: re-implement clvm
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> Wido


Actually - you should compare the original patches, with what was reverted. :
http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-10317

There was already something of a rewrite when Edison changed how some
of the storage was handled (which is the iteration that was pulled).

IANAL either, so I won't bother to even try and answer that question.

--David