cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:46:16 GMT
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<> wrote:
> I'd like Donal to offer up an alternative implementation if possible. Is
> this the long-term supportable implementation? Or is it just a hack to get
> things moving?

OK - the thread on legal-discuss@a.o seems to have wound down.  For
those interested, you can read it at [1].

The tl;dr version is:

This isn't a legal problem, but it's a community issue.  We have the
legal "right" to use that code, based on it's stated license.  We do
NOT have the right to change the copyright headers, only to add our
own for the specific files where there were material changes.

The community issue is more important though (and by community, we are
talking about the broader OSS community).  The suggestion is that we
either (1) ask for permission before including this code in our repo,
or (2) find a way to use it as a dependent library.

Given it's source (and what Donal has told me offline), I think we are
better off having this written as pure Apache code.  If that's not a
possibility, then asking to include the code is important.  And
further, we need to determine if we are going to "fork it" or
"maintain an upstream relationship" with the source.




> On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" <> wrote:
>>On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
>><> wrote:
>>> As a non-committer, developing in the Apache repository was never an
>>> Would Citrix want the Hyper-V driver it bought with
>>> Is there a NOTICE-based means of including Apache Licence 2.0 code in
>>>the repository that originated with the OpenStack project?
>>> Should I put the driver in the 'extras' folder?
>>> I'm not sure what procedures are available.
>>So, quite honestly, we don't know either. We've sought out advice from
>>mentors and they've pointed us to legal-discuss, and that conversation
>>is happening there now. Lets not get too concerned until we find out
>>what the folks who do know say and we can figure a path from there.

View raw message