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)
References: <CC82563A.2F6FE%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC82563A.2F6FE%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:37:54 -0400
Message-ID: <8184263574040575805@unknownmsgid>
Subject: Re: [ASFCS40][DISCUSS] How should we move forward to resolution on
 the config files in "patches"? Was: "Re: [ASFCS40] Configuration file
 licensing followup"
To: "<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/20/12 7:11 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>> This is cool, nice to see this data on the wiki. Thanks! Is this
>>> list exhaustive?
>>
>> I believe it is, for the patches folder.
>>
>> David is currently working his way through a file by file review of
>> the rest of the source tree.
>>
>> I'll keep up with the bugs I just created for all of the patches
>> folder files that had unknown provenance, and update the wiki page +
>> do the right licensing thing (add header, or attribute source project)
>> for those that are easily resolved.  I think we're going to end up
>> with a handful of outstanding files that may require legal-discuss
>> agreement to include in our source code, but we'll see!
>
> This list of bugs: http://s.apache.org/iIt
>
> I have resolved
> CLOUDSTACK-137 - ASL licensed
> CLOUDSTACK-138 - ASL licensed
>
> CLOUDSTACK-139 - ASL licensed and needed
>
> CLOUDSTACK-140 - Based on comm. with developer (see CLOUDSTACK-146)
>
> CLOUDSTACK-142 - removed, not used
>
> CLOUDSTACK-143 - removed, not used
>
> CLOUDSTACK-144 - removed, not used
>
> CLOUDSTACK-145 - BSD licensed
> CLOUDSTACK-146 - Joe B got release from developer Simon Kelley
>
> CLOUDSTACK-148 - Developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-157 - Developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-158 - Developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-168 - deleted, recreated at run time
>
> CLOUDSTACK-169 - deleted
>
> CLOUDSTACK-170 - deleted
>
> CLOUDSTACK-171 - rewritten
>
> CLOUDSTACK-172 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-173 - developed for CS67
>
> CLOUDSTACK-174 - deleted
>
> CLOUDSTACK-175 - updated based on suggestion in bug report
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Sheng Yang has resolved
> CLOUDSTACK-159 - rewritten
> CLOUDSTACK-160 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-161 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-162 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-163 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-164 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-165 - developed for CS
>
> CLOUDSTACK-166 - "just modified some key value assignments of the sample
> config" ?
>
> CLOUDSTACK-167 - developed for CS
>
>
>
> I am unable to resolve
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-147.
> Perhaps we need a cleanroom implementation or an exception.
> CLOUDSTACK-147 is the only one in "Unresolved" state
>
> Cheers
> --
> Chiradeep
>
>
>

Wow, this is fantastic news!

Yes, thee RAT stuff probably needs to be adjusted a bit (which I'll
happily own). We also need to do the licensing stuff for the files
originally included from other projects (again, I'm more than willing
to get that done early next week).

For that unresolved issue, perhaps we can try what Joe did for
CLOUDSTACK-146?  Does someone want to try and track down the orig
developer?  If not, this is a specific item that we can ask for an
exception on from the legal folks.

-chip