From dev-return-52279-apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive=cloudstack.apache.org@cloudstack.apache.org Tue Feb 18 19:11:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A50810238 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54271 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2014 19:11:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 54180 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2014 19:11:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 54171 invoked by uid 99); 18 Feb 2014 19:11:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:11:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [209.85.128.172] (HELO mail-ve0-f172.google.com) (209.85.128.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:11:04 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c14so13854095vea.17 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:10:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DK730KDjz41AIjanfcXTAR6T5M9duqQBp+28DntXJRM=; b=AWrVeCwZ2IJdJnlvCxMdZMTyou/A3xLMaL1JQQ0CWoDUqLtr3ajos24psyjptLhtDj OyI8d4Yg+rhNcXY9MKzcPLWYXjiuIfhgJrmdeKRh+AdCZhtbEsgwKV1GiR614nRcoH7e 36Qin23DuwHYBMN/n6nOzJ/XeMZmxM6OMh4qhH0JmpmI+Q3z5x3GsnPFrigRu+mx+c8b 1pIkwCBerCsIEeQ5WuRly4cVoA2j7HBqoOX5HAnUs18zkb08UBepHtAyR7d4JotdTwGK fcc7Vurd8zZY2tNWZpVxiX1m5V2UhySR5xxy4tp6A0VD6Te9XyJvDUxRagOMeyeTCS5E m3fg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkw2sNxBBbIX5tkCIyjx1ZDQqXAnq8Mfsp2KAi7JvG6lerL7SFARVA5+9F8ui3nxR2dn/3a X-Received: by 10.52.63.233 with SMTP id j9mr24571vds.69.1392750643435; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:10:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.160.136 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:10:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9EFC4BE3-B46A-4871-BE5A-A055501277AF@gmail.com> <1CDAA6B8-930B-469F-A356-2DD497C10BEC@schubergphilis.com> <87596CEF-DC94-4D29-A42D-5EBA1836EB64@GMAIL.com> From: David Nalley Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:10:22 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: VmWare SDK to vijava To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org #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 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" wrote: > >>Chiradeep, >> >>Whats the progress on this? >> >>Cheers, >> >>Hugo >> >> >>On 22 jan. 2014, at 23:35, Chiradeep Vittal >>wrote: >> >>> Reached out to @strikesme and @danwendlandt >>> >>> On 1/21/14 10:14 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" >>> 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" 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 >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Q. Can I redistribute the VI SDK libraries and sample code? >>>>>> A. You can redistribute only those parts of the SDK package that hav= e >>>>>> been >>>>>> designated as =B3distributable code=B2. >>>>>> 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" >>>>>> 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" wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chiradeep, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even on the generated sources nobody seems willing to state that i= t >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> 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" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Chip Childers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>> >> >