cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
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 Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:07:21 GMT
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <> wrote:
> I also removed references to these files from pom.xml so that RAT checks
> them.
> But perhaps I should not have for those that we retain since we are not
> likely to license headers on them

As I have covered on another thread, there will be types of file, following
this work:

1) A file that we wrote
2) A file that someone else wrote

For 1) if we can get away with using that all permissive license I brought
up elsewhere, I think we should. That, or no explicit license at all for
very simple files. (Meaning they would default to Apache.) And that means
that we will have to exempt these from RAT.

For 2) we cannot add our own headers. A note should go in NOTICE (as I have
brought up elsewhere) and we will have to exempt these from RAT.



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message