cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: VmWare SDK to vijava
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:10:22 GMT
#1 would still need licensing sorted - explicitly it would need to be
a Cat A or Cat B license.
https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html

#2 or similar would work I think  (though I'd imagine they'd choose
MIT or BSD if going that route)

#3 A statement that they don't consider the WSDL copyrightable (I
can't imagine they'd go for that, but who knows, makes sense
technically and Feist v Rural seems to suggest that 'information' or
even 'collection of information' isn't copyrightable without an
element of creativity. WSDL by it's nature is a description; and the
phonebook analogy plays well there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

--David


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> I just pinged the attorney again (there is a live one assigned to this
> question on the VMWare side).
>
> What options will work? If we can provide some concrete options, perhaps
> they will pick
> 1. Provide generated SDK jars in maven repo
> 2. Explicitly add ASL to WSDL
> 3. ?
>
> --
> Chiradeep
>
> On 2/18/14 7:14 AM, "Hugo Trippaers" <hugo@trippaers.nl> wrote:
>
>>Chiradeep,
>>
>>Whats the progress on this?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Hugo
>>
>>
>>On 22 jan. 2014, at 23:35, Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Reached out to @strikesme and @danwendlandt
>>>
>>> On 1/21/14 10:14 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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