On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:55 AM, David Nalley wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM, John Kinsella <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Aug 8, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:31 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping NetApp Support >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:56 PM, John Kinsella <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I reached out to some contacts at NetApp, their product management >>>> team quoted the following part of their "NETAPP MANAGEABILITY SDK - >>>> EULA.docx"[1] to me: >>>>> >>>>> "Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, NetApp grants >>>> You a license to:...Use, reproduce and distribute the Language >>>> Libraries in object code form (for C/C++, Java, C#, VB.NET and >>>> PowerShell only) and source code form (for Perl, Python and Ruby only) >>>> as incorporated into the Licensee Application; provided, however, that >>>> You (A) reproduce and include the copyright notice that appears in the >>>> Language Libraries as provided by NetApp, and (B) distribute the >>>> Licensee Application incorporating the Language Libraries pursuant to >>>> terms no less restrictive than those set forth herein. You shall not >>>> modify the Language Libraries; and..." >>>>> >>>>> Not that we want to distribute jars in the source, I was told they >>>> don't have an "open source" license so this wouldn't fly with ASL, but >>>> perhaps we could provide the library as part of the "convenience >>>> builds?" >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> 1: I can forward the docx to the list or put it up somewhere if >>>> there's interest >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> I think we may not be able to distribute this, even within a >>>> convenience binary. From what I can tell, this is basically falling >>>> into "Category X", which the ASF has explicitly stated that no project >>>> can distribute source OR binary distributions that contain prohibited >>>> works. I think we can also assume that we can't make it a "system >>>> dependency" for the project (stating the obvious here). The policy >>>> goes on to offer three suggestions for how to help users optionally >>>> make use of the prohibited work: >>>> >>>> ############### >>>> >>>> If a PMC wishes to allow optional add-ons to enhance the functionality >>>> of the standard Apache product, the following options are available: >>>> >>>> 1) For add-ons under authorized licenses, the add-on could be >>>> distributed inside the product (see forthcoming policy on "Receiving >>>> and Releasing Contributions" for details on how and where to do this). >>>> >>>> 2) For add-ons under excluded licenses, the PMC may provide a >>>> link/reference on the product web site or within product documentation >>>> to some other web site that hosts such add-ons (e.g. a SF.net project >>>> or some third-party site dedicated to distributing add-ons for the >>>> Apache product) as long as it is made clear to users that the host >>>> site is not part of the Apache product nor endorsed by the ASF. >>>> >>>> 3) For add-ons under excluded licenses, the PMC may include a feature >>>> within the product that allows the user to obtain third-party add-ons >>>> if the feature also alerts the user of the associated license and >>>> makes clear to users that the host site is not part of the Apache >>>> product nor endorsed by the ASF. >>>> >>>> ############### >>>> >>>> The way I'm interpreting this situation is: >>>> >>>> - We can't do (1) >>>> - We can do (2) or (3) >>>> >>>> Based on what you are saying about access to the library, I think that >>>> Netapp has excluded us from option 3. >>>> >>>> So we're left with option 2... we can provide instructions for how to >>>> get access to the library, and how to build CloudStack in a way that >>>> would use the library. >>>> >>>> Am I interpreting all of this correctly? >>> >>> I think that's right. Anyone using NetApp is going to need to get the SDK >>> for themselves. There are lots of terms in that license that Apache could >>> never agree to. For example, the Licensee Indemnity clause requires the >>> licensee (i.e. ASF) to indemnify NetApp against any damages. It also >>> says that the terms of the license are confidential, which means that even >>> this email is in violation of their license. >>> >>> Unless NetApp change their SDK terms drastically, there's no way that we >>> can ship their software. Option 2) is the only one open to us. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ewan. >> >> >> After giving that a closer look, I concur. Would be nice if we have a >> section in the docs or wiki listing any pieces of functionality a user could >> enable and what they have to do to get there >> >> John >> >> > > Are you willing to start building this? We are likely to have lots of > optional code paths. I think this can start as a wiki page and after > we know everything we can make it into the more official docs.
Teaches me for suggesting something. ;) Yes, I'll start working on a page in the new wiki later today. John
