incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donal Lafferty <donal.laffe...@citrix.com>
Subject Participating in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:32:39 GMT
Hi Alessandro,

With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc at https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/original-feature-spec.html
.  The design seeks to avoid installing an agent on the Hyper-V server, which differs OpenStack's
approach.

With respect to source code donations, is it feasible to remove the Cloud.Com sections of
the OpenStack driver?

DL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Pilotti [mailto:ap@pilotti.it]
> Sent: 06 February 2013 00:09
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> My company is writing and maintaining the current OpenStack Nova Hyper-V
> driver.  We are also working on a CloudStack Hyper-V driver, I'd be glad to
> contribute the code that we have and our experience with Hyper-V.
> Unfortunately due to our commitment on OpenStack, we didn't manage to
> finish it yet, but I'd be very glad if we could join your efforts on that.
> 
> If possible, we would also be happy to contribute our OpenStack Python
> code referenced in this thread.
> 
> My IRC nick on Freenode is alexpilotti in case you'd like to have a talk about it.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alessandro Pilotti
> Cloudbase Solutions | CEO
> -------------------------------------
> MVP ASP.Net / IIS
> Windows Azure Insider
> Red Hat Certified Engineer
> -------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 23:40 , Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Donal Lafferty
> > <donal.lafferty@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> To be clear, the 3rd party dependency is now limited to code written by
> Cloud.com, now owned by Citrix Systems.
> >>
> >> The background is that in 2010, Chiradeep wrote hyperv.py for the Diablo
> release of OpenStack.  The source is clearly copyrighted Cloud.com (see
> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/diablo/nova/virt/hyperv.p
> y).  The contributors license doesn't assign the copyright (see
> https://rackspace.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=XFNNZV3W23X
> E7N), rather it provides a perpetual license.  The code in this file was updated
> to remove dependencies on OpenStack and allow it to understand
> CloudStack commands, so it cannot be reused unmodified.
> >>
> >> Since the code is going away after this release, a rewrite would have a
> very short lifetime.
> >>
> >
> > Honestly, this question caused the feature to not make it into 4.1.0
> > (plus I believe there were other outstanding questions raised) .  So
> > we are really talking about 4.2.0.
> >
> >> Citrix has already donated a chunk of cloud.com IP to Apache CloudStack.
> Can I not use the process for this file?
> >
> > It could be, but you made it sound like we would move to another
> > approach in the future.  Why don't we head down that path?
> >
> >>
> >> DL
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: 05 February 2013 20:49
> >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License
> 2.0
> >>>
> >>> +1 for write new apache code as per spec. since thats what will
> >>> +eventually
> >>> have to happen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
> >>> <runseb@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> >>>>> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I'd like Donal to offer up an alternative implementation if
> >>>>>> possible. Is this the long-term supportable implementation?
Or is
> >>>>>> it just a hack to
> >>>> get
> >>>>>> things moving?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK - the thread on legal-discuss@a.o seems to have wound down.
> For
> >>>>> those interested, you can read it at [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The tl;dr version is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This isn't a legal problem, but it's a community issue.  We have
the
> >>>>> legal "right" to use that code, based on it's stated license.  We
do
> >>>>> NOT have the right to change the copyright headers, only to add
our
> >>>>> own for the specific files where there were material changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The community issue is more important though (and by community,
> we
> >>>>> are talking about the broader OSS community).  The suggestion is
> >>>>> that we either (1) ask for permission before including this code
in
> >>>>> our repo, or (2) find a way to use it as a dependent library.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given it's source (and what Donal has told me offline), I think
we
> >>>>> are better off having this written as pure Apache code.  If that's
> >>>>> not a possibility, then asking to include the code is important.
> >>>>> And further, we need to determine if we are going to "fork it" or
> >>>>> "maintain an upstream relationship" with the source.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to re-write as pure Apache code
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -chip
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ajmuxmxfdrcurswp
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
> >>>>>>> <donal.lafferty@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> As a non-committer, developing in the Apache repository
was
> never
> >>>>>>>> an option.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would Citrix want the Hyper-V driver it bought with
Cloud.com?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is there a NOTICE-based means of including Apache Licence
2.0
> >>>>>>>> code in the repository that originated with the OpenStack
project?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Should I put the driver in the 'extras' folder?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what procedures are available.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, quite honestly, we don't know either. We've sought out
advice
> >>>>>>> from mentors and they've pointed us to legal-discuss, and
that
> >>>>>>> conversation is happening there now. Lets not get too concerned
> >>>>>>> until we find out what the folks who do know say and we
can figure
> a
> >>> path from there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>


Mime
View raw message