cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: Github integration
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:10:35 GMT
On 20 October 2012 22:17, David Nalley <> wrote:

> Following up to this thread:
> > Some ways in which the current CloudStack account on GitHub are
> problematic:
> >
> >    - CloudStack is used as the account name, in both the URL and the UI
> I attempted to solve this with cloudstack-extras - and that thread is
> still ongoing.

I think if we can nail this, the URL is fine.

> >    - The account advertises itself as the "CloudStack Project"
> I changed this to: former home of the CloudStack Project (Now Apache
> CloudStack (incubating)  - which obviously has a typo, and doesn't do
> a good job explaining what it is.
> I've changed this a few moments ago to: "Collection of repos that are
> useful for folks using Apache CloudStack" let me know if you see that
> as problematic.

Heh. This looks good to me. (Bit long winded though! ;)

> >    - There is a repository itself called "CloudStack"
> Yes. So here is the problem (and happy to hear creative ways to solve it.)
> The entire CloudStack code base did not move to the ASF. In particular
> we only moved what was, at that time, the most recent version's brand
> and the master branch were moved. (as per the proposal submitted to
> the incubator.) However, CloudStack has about 4 years of history prior
> to that and probably something close to 50 releases. CloudStack, prior
> to April was GPLv3 licensed. So there is a requirement under the GPL
> that we make our source code available for those releases; and quite
> honestly the git repo is the easiest way to do this.

How long does this (onerous) requirement apply? Are these active releases?
How long do we have to keep this stuff around? My preference is that we
just wipe it. But there may be good reasons to archive it somewhere instead.

I just read the GPL, and it says "you remain obligated to ensure that it is
available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements." Man, the
GPL is a dumb license. So what does this actually mean?

> I am open to
> other alternatives to complying with the legal responsibilities of the
> GPL, but I am not aware of any)  I have made that repo effectively
> read only (it was acting as a mirror for a Citrix internal repo.
> In short, I do not see a legal way of jettisoning this repo.

There has to be, eventually. And if there has to be a way eventually, the
question is when. The GPL *cannot possibly mean* that we have to keep this
repos around in perpetuity. If it meant that, then any software you ever
release under the GPL would mean that for the *rest of your life* you had
to host the source code for it.

Additionally, in the original releases you made under Citrix, did you
release the source code? Because if you did, then I am not sure this
applies. I think this only applies if you were making binary releases. i.e.
this is basically here to make sure that people who downloaded binary
releases can also download the source code later.

I think it is reasonable for us (given the wording of the GPL) to remove
the old source code as soon as we consider the non-Apache releases to be
inactive and unsupported.)

> But open to alternatives.
> I have added a disclaimer to the description of the repo that says as
> follows:
> DEPRECATED & read-only!! - This repo exists for GPL compliance only.
> CloudStack development has moved to the ASF - see

That's great.

Perhaps the repos name can change to "cloudstack-old", or
"cloudstack-archive" or something?

> >    - There is a link to
> I've removed that link (and the link to the ACS project page) I've
> added disclaimer that says 'not affiliated with the Apache CloudStack
> project'

Yep, that's great!

> >    - The word "CloudStack" is frequently used in repository names
> This is a nominative use of the word CloudStack IMO. knife-cloudstack
> is a knife plugin designed to interact with cloudstack.
> puppet-cloudStack is a puppet module designed to deploy CloudStack,
> zabbix-cloudstack is a Zabbix module designed to monitor CloudStack.
> As I said in another email, not every use of the word CloudStack is a
> trademark violation, and indeed I don't know what we would change it
> to if it were. knife-that-IaaS-project-at-the-ASF seems a bit
> pointless.

You're right. I was listing it because it contributed to an *overall*
confusion. With these other things sorted out, I think these repos names
are probably fine. The note above about whether we should consider renaming
the "cloudstack" one is sort of the only one that concerns me at this point.

> >    - There isn't a single mention of Apache anywhere on the page
> There is now a mention of apache there, but it disclaims any involvement.

That's great!

> What else needs to happen wrt this github account?

Let's wrap up discussion on this thread and then I think we'll be done.


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