cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <>
Subject Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 11:51:55 GMT
On 05/21/2013 09:53 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chip Childers
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features
>>>> like snapshotting, cloning and deploying System VMs on RBD.
>>>> To do this correctly I wrote Java bindings for librbd and librados (part
>>>> of the Ceph project).
>>>> These bindings [1] are just like libvirt-java just JNA bindings for
>>>> these libraries. Since these bindings aren't in Maven central I created
>>>> a Maven repository on [2] and I added it to the pom.xml of the
>>>> KVM plugin for the Agent.
>>>> Can we accept this as a dependency? It's just a Maven dependency which
>>>> doesn't include any binary code into the Git repo.
>>>> The bindings are currently GPLv2 licensed since that's what Ceph uses,
>>>> but does this conflict with the Apache project? I want to make sure it
>>>> will be included in the OSS builds of CloudStack, so I can change the
>>>> license if required.
>>> I have to correct myself here. The license is LGPLv2 for both Ceph
>>> and the Java bindings.
>>> Wido
>> This is going to be problematic with that license.  See:
>> We put things like this in the non-oss build OR specify that they need
>> to be installed prior to our software being installed / built (calling
>> them system dependencies).
>> It would be *much* easier for it to be re-licensed with a license that
>> the ASF has approved as compatible with ASLv2.
> Since it looks like you wrote all of this particular piece of
> software, can you dual license? LGPLv2 and ASLv2? (or BSD or MIT for
> that matter)

I wrote all the code. So I just released version 0.1.1 which is licensed 

I just went for LGPLv2 because I needed some license. These are just 
bindings, so I don't care that much.

Any objections against using this?


> --David

View raw message