incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
Date Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:23 GMT
Doesn't matter who owns the copyright. It wasn't developed in the Apache
repository and was never part of the original donation from Citrix.

On 1/31/13 2:29 AM, "Donal Lafferty" <donal.lafferty@citrix.com> wrote:

>The code isn't entirely third party.
>
>The source I incorporated is clearly derived from Cloud.com (now
>Citrix's) Hyper-V driver.  As soon as it was moved to a different file,
>the Cloud.com copyright was deleted.  However, the code I use is a
>copy/paste job from the original driver.
>
>Rather than use the current driver, I could use the driver from Diablo,
>which is wholly copyright of Cloud.com (now Citrix)
>
>DL
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: 31 January 2013 05:35
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache
>>License 2.0
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Donal Lafferty
>><donal.lafferty@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I have a specific question on incorporating existing code under Apache
>> License 2.0 that I forgot to ask earlier in the month.
>> >
>> > My Hyper-V plugin calls down to modified versions of the OpenStack
>>Nova
>> driver for Hyper-V.
>> >
>> > In my repo, I've:
>> >
>> > 1.       Retained the original copyright notice.
>> >
>> > 2.       Added an additional copyright notice mentioning the creator
>>of the
>> derivate work, which in this case is Citrix.
>> >
>> > 3.       Verified that OpenStack Nova's LICENSE is Apache License V2.0
>> >
>> > Are these steps sufficient to add the code to Apache CloudStack?
>> >
>> > E.g. does Apache Version 2.0 require that the original project be
>>mentioned
>> in our NOTICE file?
>> 
>> sigh (and despite my sigh - thanks for bringing the issue up on the
>>list, it
>> would have been bad to find this out on review) This is effectively
>>third party
>> code, if you are actually including it (as opposed to it being a
>>dependency) it
>> needs to go through IP Clearance as well as be noted in our legal docs.
>> 
>> --David


Mime
View raw message