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 23:42:38 GMT
We don't know that it is. We know the vim25.jar is distributed to us
from the vmware SDK with different licensing.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> If vim25.jar source is BSD then why are we including it in noredist?
>
> mvn install:install-file -Dfile=vim25_51.jar
> -DgroupId=com.cloud.com.vmware -DartifactId=vmware-vim25    -Dversion=5.1
>  -Dpackaging=jar
>
>
>
> On 2/18/14 1:51 PM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>>That's still licensed as BSD (the license header is in the file)
>>
>>--David
>>
>>On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>><Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Not all.
>>>
>>>http://sourceforge.net/p/vijava/code/283/tree/trunk/src/com/vmware/vim25/
>>>mo
>>> /Alarm.java
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/18/14 12:05 PM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Option 1 still needs licensing sorted. Being on a maven repo still
>>>>doesn't fix the problem for us and our users.
>>>>
>>>>WRT to vijava the classes in source all appear to have a copyright
>>>>header indicating that Steve is the author and licensed under BSD.
>>>>In example:
>>>>http://sourceforge.net/p/vijava/code/283/tree/trunk/src/com/vmware/vim25
>>>>/A
>>>>gentInstallFailed.java
>>>>
>>>>--David
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>>>><Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'd say option 1 is the easiest to digest.
>>>>> On that note, are we gaining anything (legal-wise) by switching to
>>>>>vijava?
>>>>> I just uncompressed the download[1]. It bundles the compiled classes
>>>>>found
>>>>> in vim25.jar which is (presumably) VMWare proprietary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://vijava.sourceforge.net/
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/18/14 11:10 AM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>#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-
>>>>>>>>>>18
>>>>>>>>>>0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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