On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > On 07/31/2012 09:48 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote: >> >> I'd be happy to try more if I had access to any contact info. As it >> is, things in the surrounding code have changed enough that a bit of >> re-factoring would need to be done even if there were permission. >> >> My hunch is that unless he's switched roles, once the new version is >> released he may come out of the woodwork wondering why that thing he >> has a need for and developed is gone. > > > After writing the last RBD implementation this CLVM seems trivial. > > A lot of code is still in there and looking at the commit where it got > removed it wont be that much work. > > The problem (and I'm not a licensing expert) is that if I would implement > CLVM again it would look a lot like the original code, do we have to refer > to the old author for that? > > I'm assuming here that we won't be able to contact the original author, but > we want to keep the CLVM functionality for 4.0. > > Wido
Actually - you should compare the original patches, with what was reverted. : http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-10317 There was already something of a rewrite when Edison changed how some of the storage was handled (which is the iteration that was pulled). IANAL either, so I won't bother to even try and answer that question. --David
