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: [DISCUSS] About shipping a non-OSS CloudStack
Date Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:17:44 GMT
Agreed. I don't think this blocks 4.0.

The thread is on general@incubator, and I just nudged it along some.

It would be good to get final word on whether we have the legal right to
distribute these files.

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:

> Noah,
>
> I'm not sure about legal rights to distribute (I'm not from Citrix,
> and can't vouch for the original terms under which Citrix / Cloud.com
> acquired the jars).  We'll have to get an answer from someone from
> that original team.
>
> That being said, I don't think there is anything for the CloudStack
> community to do until the legal-discuss@a.o thread comes to a
> consensus.  Also, I don't think that we are in a position where this
> has anything to do with a potential release.  It *may* impact an
> eventual graduation, depending on the legal thread.  Either way, to
> purge history will require folks from infra@ to get it done (if not
> root@).
>
> -chip
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> > Just one follow up. Someone on the Incubator thread mentioned that we
> > should be fine as long as it is legal for us to distribute them.
> > (Irrespective of their compatibility with the Apache license.) Do you
> know
> > whether this is the case?
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:52 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 30, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Poor choice of words. :) I've asked a question on
> general@incuabtorabout
> >> > this now. I presume the jars have since been removed from HEAD. Is
> that
> >> > right? And what license were they distributed under?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> They have all (to my knowledge) been removed.
> >> Some were under VMwares SDK license, which does permit some
> redistribution
> >> in certain cases, others were under the NetApp SDK license for which I
> am
> >> unaware of the terms but it was posted to the list some time back.
> >>
> >> Those are the only two that jump to mind that weren't under some sort of
> >> an open source license, but my memory might be fallible.
> >>
> >> --David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:48 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> My concern is that we're hosting non-OS software on ASF
> infrastructure
> >> >> that
> >> >>> people are actually downloading for convenience! I am not sure
what
> the
> >> >>> policy is around non-OS software that has been mistakenly committed.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> It wasn't mistakenly committed.
> >> >> It was originally in the codebase when we imported it to the ASF.
> >> >>
> >> >> --David
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > NS
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
>



-- 
NS

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