cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 12:46:25 GMT
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 09:53 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chip Childers
>> <chip.childers@sungard.com> 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 Ceph.com [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:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> 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
> ASLv2.
>
> 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?
>

None from me.

--David

Mime
View raw message