Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <81A73678E76EA642801C8F2E4823AD2101418307076B@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <CAKprHVZgfiqz9zOn5MxbAjyVeMhNVbWvcOyWPn90txy=Nd9WrQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD302851.5FF0%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
	<CA+96GG5QDtXNBecLdbA3ShonQrC3z_qSnx3+2KcD6DHSu9U6Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0A6C7CDA-9530-4260-9DF5-8A713118FF5A@gmail.com>
	<CAO+D_1w7TK4-swWQHyVsWj7gvHzdy59nVyJeTPnTr5trxOEZtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<81A73678E76EA642801C8F2E4823AD2101418307076B@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:40:29 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CA+96GG4hmCYDUXehSGd1hJ9Zkj6a+fQRvAL-0YcM4jOGYKT9PA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
To: Donal Lafferty <donal.lafferty@citrix.com>
Cc: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>,
	"aemneina@gmail.com" <aemneina@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Donal Lafferty
<donal.lafferty@citrix.com> wrote:
> To be clear, the 3rd party dependency is now limited to code written by C=
loud.com, now owned by Citrix Systems.
>
> The background is that in 2010, Chiradeep wrote hyperv.py for the Diablo =
release of OpenStack.  The source is clearly copyrighted Cloud.com (see htt=
ps://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/diablo/nova/virt/hyperv.py).  Th=
e contributors license doesn't assign the copyright (see https://rackspace.=
echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=3DXFNNZV3W23XE7N), rather it provides=
 a perpetual license.  The code in this file was updated to remove dependen=
cies on OpenStack and allow it to understand CloudStack commands, so it can=
not be reused unmodified.
>
> Since the code is going away after this release, a rewrite would have a v=
ery short lifetime.
>

Honestly, this question caused the feature to not make it into 4.1.0
(plus I believe there were other outstanding questions raised) .  So
we are really talking about 4.2.0.

> Citrix has already donated a chunk of cloud.com IP to Apache CloudStack. =
 Can I not use the process for this file?

It could be, but you made it sound like we would move to another
approach in the future.  Why don't we head down that path?

>
> DL
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 05 February 2013 20:49
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License=
 2.0
>>
>> +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
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>