cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: VmWare SDK to vijava
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:47:53 GMT
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-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