incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Avenante <d.avena...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License question
Date Fri, 18 May 2012 18:08:55 GMT
In one of my project we build the project with maven (instate of ant) and
we have some plugin like http://code.google.com/p/maven-license-plugin/
So we can address licence issue module by module (automaticly add/change
licence on code header ....)



On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers.
>
> The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1
>
> And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version,
> and should be removed.
>
> If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix
> licensing stuff.
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not a lawyer, but....
> >
> > As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released
> 3.0.2 tarball I stumbled across a license issue. Having already built 3.0.1
> packages in OBS I might be in trouble already, but I didn't read it all and
> figured I'd ask some questions first.
> >
> > The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and
> appears to be geared toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around to
> find a page [1] where it clearly states that 3.0 is licensed under GPLv3
> and 3.1 will be licensed under ASLv2.
> >
> > In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix
> proprietary software program in object code form distributed hereunder."
> which would appear to be in conflict with GPLv3 at least, and based on my
> interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3.
> >
> > Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care
> whether the code if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention of
> starting a political flame war or discussion about license choice. I am
> concerned about this from a packagers point of view only.
> >
> > - It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source
> code, all branches?
> >
> > - Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that
> clearly states the license that covers the tree?
> >
> > - Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF
> infrastructure?
> >
> > - How does the license change affect the master branch? After all,
> calling something 3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control system,
> or will this be date/commit based, i.e. as of commit X the master branch is
> considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with the creation of the
> 3.1 branch)
> >
> > - Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts
> like this from the code base? It would be difficult for community
> contributors to feel confident/comfortable in sending submit request to
> remove artifacts like this from the code base.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > [1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html
> >
> > --
> > Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> > SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
> > Tech Lead
> > rjschwei@suse.com
> > rschweik@ca.ibm.com
> > 781-464-8147
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message