cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ahmad Emneina <aemne...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:49:15 GMT
+1 for write new apache code as per spec. since thats what will eventually
have to happen.


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> > <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> 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.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> +1 to re-write as pure Apache code
>
>
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ajmuxmxfdrcurswp
> >
> >> On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
> >>> <donal.lafferty@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>> As a non-committer, developing in the Apache repository was never an
> >>>> option.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would Citrix want the Hyper-V driver it bought with Cloud.com?
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>
> >>
>
>

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