cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <>
Subject Re: [ASFCS40] [DISCUSS] System VM strategy
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:55:51 GMT

On 08/20/2012 11:32 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> On 8/14/12 10:33 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <>
> wrote:
>> On 8/14/12 6:20 AM, "Chip Childers" <> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to kick off conversation with this thread...
>>> I know that people have been looking at the System VM licensing and
>>> distribution issues from various angles, but I'm not sure we came to a
>>> consensus on how to deal with the system VMs overall.
>>> AFAIK, we have two outstanding issues:
>>> 1 - We have a bunch of configuration / code in the patches folder of
>>> our source tree that *may* have licensing issues.
>> IANAL, but config files that do not have license text already should not
>> have any issue?
>> Especially since there is no other way to configure the software?
>> About half the config files are original work (not derived), the rest can
>> be supplied as patch files to the originals.
>> Not sure that supplying patches is any different from distributing
>> modified config files though.
>>> 2 - We need to initiate a request to ASF Legal for permission to
>>> distribute a system VM template (including the GPL OS and software)
>> >from ASF infrastructure, OR figure out how the community can
>>> distribute valid system VMs outside of ASF.
>> Wido has some good suggestions here:
>> 1. Host convenience binaries on say Sourceforge
>> 2. Supply the build script so that folks can build it themselves.
> Following up from the IRC discussion:
> 1. Regarding license of configuration files, I have raised an issue with
> Legal:
> 2. Regarding the iptables deb for fixing dhcp behavior for Ubuntu VMs, I
> have a proposal:
>     A. Since the system vm cannot be distributed, we will have to host it
> as a convenience binary somewhere. This hosted version can certainly have
> the DHCP fix
>     B. For those who want to build the system vm from scratch, they will
> not get the DHCP/iptables fix but are welcome to install the fix as a
> post-build procedure.

If they build the System VM from Ubuntu 12.04 they should have the DHCP 
fix already?

I can't find the thread where this was discussed in.

I still think we should make it easier for users to create a System VM. 
Like I already said ( ), we should generate a couple 
of DEB (or RPM) packages which you can install and turn your clean 
install into a System VM. Something I want to take a look at post-4.0


> --
> Chiradeep

View raw message