incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org>
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, 26 Sep 2012 08:34:56 GMT
We're still talking about the delta, right? I would argue that the author
of the delta is the Debian developer. Do you disagree?

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:

> The upstream license is GPLv2. I don't think it is possible to trace all
> the developers.
>
> On 9/25/12 3:04 AM, "Noah Slater" <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> >However, Debian only ships open source code, so we know we're good there.
> >What is the upstream license? If the upstream developer is happy with us
> >using it, then as long as we attribute all the correct people, we should
> >be
> >good to go.
> >
> >On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> >Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/24/12 5:35 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> >> ><Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 9/21/12 8:37 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> >> >>><Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I am unable to resolve
> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-147.
> >> >>>> Perhaps we need a cleanroom implementation or an exception.
> >> >>>> CLOUDSTACK-147 is the only one in "Unresolved" state
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Cheers
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Chiradeep
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Wow, this is fantastic news!
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Yes, thee RAT stuff probably needs to be adjusted a bit (which I'll
> >> >>>happily own). We also need to do the licensing stuff for the files
> >> >>>originally included from other projects (again, I'm more than willing
> >> >>>to get that done early next week).
> >> >>>
> >> >>>For that unresolved issue, perhaps we can try what Joe did for
> >> >>>CLOUDSTACK-146?  Does someone want to try and track down the orig
> >> >>>developer?  If not, this is a specific item that we can ask for
an
> >> >>>exception on from the legal folks.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>-chip
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no "original developer", it is a delta from the stock Debian
> >> >> config.
> >> >
> >> >By "original developer", I meant that we could go to the source
> >> >project for the file itself and ask what claims they believe they have
> >> >on the file (and / or willingness to change).  Does it make sense to
> >> >try that?
> >>
> >> Sorry, let me clarify. The config file is probably authored by Debian
> >> developers,
> >> likely based on a template from the original authors. That is, there are
> >> multiple developers
> >> involved unlike the dnsmasq case which had a single author.
> >>
> >> Given that the delta from the Debian config is a few lines of key-value
> >> bindings, we can either
> >> A) vote on whether this constitutes an acceptable use
> >> B) ask for legal ruling
> >> C) develop some way of patching the original with this delta.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chiradeep
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >NS
>
>


-- 
NS

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