cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hugo Trippaers <HTrippa...@schubergphilis.com>
Subject Re: VmWare SDK to vijava
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:14:44 GMT
We are now again at the exact same point as where Darren was.

This is the legal ticket relevant to the license discussion: https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/LEGAL-180

Either we get an ok from legal or we need to find an alternative. Kelven, Chiradeep, are you
guys going to chase this ticket?

Hugo

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 jan. 2014, at 07:04, "Hugo Trippaers" <trippie@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Kelven, Chiradeep,
> 
> What license governs the redistribution, what do we include in our notice file and is
that license compatible with the ASF license policy?
> 
> Hugo
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 22 jan. 2014, at 00:44, Kelven Yang <kelven.yang@citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Q. Can I redistribute the VI SDK libraries and sample code?
>> A. You can redistribute only those parts of the SDK package that have been
>> designated as ³distributable code².
>> In VI SDK 2.5, the following components can be redistributed: vim.jar,
>> vim25.jar. To note developers typically generate web service stubs from
>> the WSDL file that is included in the VI SDK using a SOAP toolkit.
>> 
>>>> The stubs source and the compiled stubs can also be distributed.
>> 
>> 
>> Could this solve our license problem, we discussed before that generating
>> our own java stub can give us flexibility to support co-existence of
>> different versions of VMware web service API inside CloudStack.
>> 
>> If we see this as urgency, we need to have someone work on to put WSDL
>> generation process to maven build
>> 
>> For latest names of VI SDK libraries that can be redistributed visit
>> http://vmware.com/go/sdk-redistribution-info
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/21/14, 3:18 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Apparently we can 
>>> https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-7983
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/ttamcfb4d6azzbw7
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 1/21/14 2:46 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <trippie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Chiradeep,
>>>> 
>>>> Even on the generated sources nobody seems willing to state that it is ok
>>>> to include them at the moment. Otherwise I would have put them in
>>>> already.
>>>> 
>>>> Hugo
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On 21 jan. 2014, at 19:32, Chiradeep Vittal
>>>>> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suboptimal for?
>>>>> Wouldn't the ACS user want the best / supported client libraries?
>>>>> Alternatively, can't we just compile the WSDL and check in the
>>>>> generated
>>>>> sources? Not check-in the WSDL, but the client sources.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 1/21/14 7:18 AM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Chip Childers
>>>>>> <chipchilders@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I bet we never got an answer. Frankly, I'd like to see us use
>>>>>>> something where the licensing is clear.  That, or we don't include
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> WSDL in our repo / distro.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Additionally, we are an open source project that is in the business
of
>>>>>> producing open source software. Depending on non-free and
>>>>>> non-opensource libraries is suboptimal, but its worse when there
is a
>>>>>> open source alternative.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --David
>> 

Mime
View raw message