cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <>
Subject Re: [ASFCS40][DISCUSS] How should we move forward to resolution on the config files in "patches"? Was: "Re: [ASFCS40] Configuration file licensing followup"
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:55:42 GMT
On 09/12/2012 09:42 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
> (Looking for mentor guidance here as well please!)
> On this topic, we need to come together as a community to figure out
> how we want to proceed with these configuration files.  It doesn't
> seem like we are going to get a definitive answer on legal-discuss@a.o
> without asking about a specific file from a specific source.  There
> HAS been a little discussion about the ability of a configuration file
> to be copyright on the legal list, but it didn't go much further than
> a couple of emails.
> As far as I can tell, we have some options:
> 1 - Do a file by file audit to confirm the source and if there is any
> claim of copyright on those files, and then either:
> 1.A - Ask the source project if they would consider granting a
> different license for just that config file.
> 1.B - Ask legal-discuss@a.o for specific exemptions
> 1.C - Do nothing, because the file isn't something that a copyright is
> claimed on (and we wouldn't claim a copyright either)

I'd go for 1C


> 1.D - Spec out the requirements, and have someone attempt a clean-room
> implementation (I think that I could find someone if it gets to this)
> 2 - Follow up on the concept of configuration files not being
> protected by copyright, and ask for a ruling from legal-discuss on
> that idea.
> There may be other options that I'm missing.  I'm looking for opinions
> and suggestions for how to move forward, since this is absolutely one
> of the blocker issues for a 4.0 release.  Thoughts?
> -chip
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Chip Childers <> wrote:
>> Chiradeep,
>> Would you mind putting together the specific example data being
>> requested by Daniel [1] on legal-discuss@a.o in response to the legal
>> Jira that you raised [2]?
>> The legal thread includes some discussion on the possibility of config
>> files even being something that could enjoy license protection, but we
>> should probably plan on dealing with the potential provenance issues
>> anyway.
>> -chip
>> [1] -
>> [2] -

View raw message