cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francois Gaudreault <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker?
Date Fri, 21 Feb 2014 02:10:31 GMT
I may be wrong here, and far from being an expert at this, but isn't the 
MariaDB connector doing the same thing, but under a Lesser GPL license? 
Which would solve a lot of licensing issues (no need to put CloudStack 
entirely on GPL).


On 2/20/2014, 5:10 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Real quick, because I don't know if I will be able to track this
> thread in detail starting tonight...  Take this as input to the
> discussion that the whole community needs to have about the
> *potential* problem with the current situation.
> Legal documentation as well as application of the "valid license
> categories" is tied to the bits in something we distribute.  So that
> means that we have LICENSE and NOTICE for the source package (with all
> code either being valid licenses or developed at the ASF).  This same
> logic applies to any binary distribution...  they have their own legal
> documents, and they should pertain to all bits included in that
> distribution.
> Unlike other ASF projects, we do NOT offer binary builds from ASF
> infra.  This is where things are fuzzy, and there needs to be a
> discussion.  We offer "packages" that are pre-compiled.  That being
> said, we actually offer RPMs that include the nonoss features, while
> our community hosted DEBs do not contain those bits.  Theoretically
> though, the packages should be the place to depend on "system
> dependencies".
> The other issue is one of "default build" not having any category X
> dependencies.  There is a fine line between a "system dependency" and
> a dependency that is pulled down during the build.  We had previously
> agreed that the cat X stuff would require manual work and not be
> pulled in automatically.
> Transitive dependencies are also an issue...  if we package them, we
> should respect their license and actually need to have them in the
> legal docs.  Not sure where they stand WRT being pulled in by the
> build process...
> So...  no answers, just a bit of background.
> I'm going to be offline (mostly) until Wed of next week.  I will try
> to watch this thread and rescind my -1 on the RC if we can work our
> way through this logic puzzle in a way that satisfies my concerns
> about the current state of things.
> -chip
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Chip Childers <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> <> wrote:
>>> Chip, David thanks for the detailed explanation, is one of you taking care of
fixing this issue or we need to find other volunteers
>> I'm sorry to say that I do not have the available cycles.  $dayjob +
>> getting ready for a few days off has me pretty booked up.
>> -chip

Francois Gaudreault
Architecte de Solution Cloud | Cloud Solutions Architect
- - -
420 rue Guy
Montréal QC  H3J 1S6

View raw message