cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: [MERGE] merge 'events-framework' branch to master
Date Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:29:46 GMT
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Chris Sears <> wrote:
> On #3, since RabbitMQ's java client library is licensed under MPL 1.1,
> I assume it would fall under the "Category B" list of licenses.
> From :
> "By including only the object/binary form, there is less exposed
> surface area of the third-party work from which a work might be
> derived; this addresses the second guiding principle of this policy.
> By attaching a prominent label to the distribution and requiring an
> explicit action by the user to get the reciprocally-licensed source,
> users are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly
> different from those of the Apache License. Please include the URL to
> the product's homepage in the prominent label."
> Does this labeling requirement apply to Maven dependencies that are
> just referenced from pom files?


The official source artifact is "source only", and so we're not
technically distributing any mvn dependency.

However, the project has set the precedent of applying licensing
classifications to any resulting package built from the *default*
build / packaging processes contained within the source tree.  This is
specifically why we (1) require the mysql connector jar to be a "build
only" maven dependency and a "system dependency" as far as the
packages are concerned, as well as (2) why we have a non-oss build
flag that includes compiling the source code that links to non-ASLv2
compatible jar dependencies (including some closed source deps).

As you noted, this is a dual-licensed dependency (MPL1.1 and GPLv2).
We would have to document our use of this dependency (for the
packages) as selecting the MPL1.1.


The use of Rabbit is still a question for me. It seems like you went
with Rabbit, but the answer you gave as to "why" [1] didn't really
answer the question or respond to the issue I raised about the
practicalities of AMQP differences between versions and brokers [2].
Can you address these please?



View raw message