incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [ASFCS40][DISCUSS] How should we move forward to resolution on the config files in "patches"? Was: "Re: [ASFCS40] Configuration file licensing followup"
Date Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:47:45 GMT
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/12 12:42 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>(Looking for mentor guidance here as well please!)
>>
>>On this topic, we need to come together as a community to figure out
>>how we want to proceed with these configuration files.  It doesn't
>>seem like we are going to get a definitive answer on legal-discuss@a.o
>>without asking about a specific file from a specific source.  There
>>HAS been a little discussion about the ability of a configuration file
>>to be copyright on the legal list, but it didn't go much further than
>>a couple of emails.
>>
>>As far as I can tell, we have some options:
>>
>>1 - Do a file by file audit to confirm the source and if there is any
>>claim of copyright on those files, and then either:
>>1.A - Ask the source project if they would consider granting a
>>different license for just that config file.
>>1.B - Ask legal-discuss@a.o for specific exemptions
>>1.C - Do nothing, because the file isn't something that a copyright is
>>claimed on (and we wouldn't claim a copyright either)
>>1.D - Spec out the requirements, and have someone attempt a clean-room
>>implementation (I think that I could find someone if it gets to this)
>>2 - Follow up on the concept of configuration files not being
>>protected by copyright, and ask for a ruling from legal-discuss on
>>that idea.
>>
>>There may be other options that I'm missing.  I'm looking for opinions
>>and suggestions for how to move forward, since this is absolutely one
>>of the blocker issues for a 4.0 release.  Thoughts?
>>
>>-chip
>
> I am inclined to do 1.C. There are other OSS projects that contain
> configuration files:
> For example the HAProxy cookbook template for Chef [1] is very similar to
> the config file
> in  CloudStack [2]
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/opscode-cookbooks/haproxy/blob/master/templates/default/
> haproxy.cfg.erb
>
> [2] http://s.apache.org/8KI
>
>

Just to be clear, for 1.C, I was assuming that it was only an option
for a specific file that we were able to prove was not copyrighted by
someone or something (proj, corp, etc...).

Mime
View raw message