John, No, the Apache license doesn't appear in the published Citrix CloudPlatform documentation. It's inside our source files, which are seen only by the writers. The published documentation has a Citrix copyright page. I am not sure of the legal ramifications, but I know that Citrix always intended for our doc source files (minus any Citrix-specific differences) to be part of the ACS project.
Still waiting to know where to post the contributions so they can be put through the same process as the rest of that code from CP 3.0.6... Jessica T. -----Original Message----- From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:41 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened Innocent question, bare with me: These bits which we're discussing that were developed outside the ASF repo - they weren't distributed in CloudPlatform with an ASF copyright header, were they? On Jan 11, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Jessica Tomechak <jessica.tomec...@citrix.com> wrote: > The email below suggests all contributions should be made available for IP > clearance and community acceptance in some well-known location. Also, it > suggests that all existing documentation for the proposed contributions > should be similarly available. > > I have some documentation that was written outside the ACS repo. I am happy > to place it in any appropriate place for review. Where should it go? On the > wiki, with the FS for the proposed feature? Attached to the feature bug's doc > subtask? Or is the "outside" code going to be brought in through patches on > Reviewboard? > > The docs I'm referring to are in .xml files with the Apache license up top > and &PRODUCT; for the software name, and will build with the existing ACS > /doc directory. > > Jessica T. > CloudStack Tech Pubs > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:43 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> As suggested by community Citrix will go through IP clearance process. I am >> updating identified defects with more contextual information and will >> summarize in this thread once I am done. The list is longer than originally >> identified. This is obviously an important lesson and hopefully we will not >> run into similar situation in future. >> >> I also wanted to get clarification on what does community consider >> significant contribution with respect to IP clearance? Is 300-400 lines of >> code that has gone through community discussion but submitted in 1-2 commits >> considered significant? >> > > "Substantial" is the term used by the process documentation. I pointedly > asked one of our mentors for advice on defining "substantial", and the > response was basically "it's complicated" and "consider the cases > individually". > > I would suggest that we follow that advice. We discuss each contribution, > individually, to understand what the community consensus on each one is. If > we decide that we want to accept a contribution, and further decide that we > want to take it through the IP clearance process, we should continue with > each contribution being handled separately. > > In order to be specific in each discuss thread, we need to ensure that we > have a public location where the proposed contribution is available for > review. > > I also believe that a VOTE within the community will be required for each > (after the DISCUSS or PROPOSE thread proposing the contribution initially), > before taking the process to the IPMC. My reason for that, is that I believe > we need to begin to *act like* a responsible TLP, even though we are still a > podling. > > -chip > >> I have looked over the Apache guidelines and markmail archive on IP >> clearance process but still looking forward to guidance/help on IP >> clearance logistics from folks who have that experience. >> >> Thanks >> Animesh >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:07 AM >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: [ACS41] Concerns about where development has happened >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In reviewing the feature proposals for 4.1.0, David and I have found >>> many problems that indicate that development has happened outside of >>> the community. While I can't be sure that we've found all of the >>> issues, it's certainly problematic to see this many. >>> >>> Please review and let me know if I'm misinterpreting the state of things. >>> >>> I'm not sure where to go from here. I guess we have 2 options: we >>> re-write the code from scratch as CloudStack code, or Citrix donates >>> the code produced for CloudPlatform (and it gets taken through the IP >>> clearance process). >>> >>> The following features are potentially issues: >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-297 >>> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Discussion occurred in >>> October I don't believe that the code is in the ASF repo >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-299 >>> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release The UI code appears to be >>> in our repo, but the backend does not. >>> Example, grep for: createEgressFirewallRule >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-306 (CLOUDSTACK-775 is a duplicate) This is in the >>> CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Commits went into master on Jan 4 (there >>> are 3 >>> commits) Discussion happened in October >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-737 >>> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release UI work completed >>> (CLOUDSTACK- >>> 537) in the asf repo, starting in november I can't find any commits >>> for the backend work in our repo The requirements wiki page and jira >>> record were created on Jan 3 Dev list discussion started in >>> November, but there were outstanding questions that were not >>> addressed in that thread. Unsure if consensus was achieved. >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-774 >>> Frank identified that this was a "Byron feature" and that all "Byron >>> features should be merged to ASF repo", but I'm unable to find in >>> the CloudPlatform release notes Unable to find dev list discussion >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-777 >>> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Docs already submitted, >>> but no FS available. >>> Unable to find dev list discussion >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-778 >>> This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release Docs are done, but >>> feature doesn't exist in CloudStack Unable to find dev list >>> discussion >>> >>> Also, generally all documentation originally created for >>> CloudPlatform >>> 3.0.6 features, but not created in the CloudStack git repo or >>> submitted prior to publication will need to go through IP clearance. >>> >>> Also: CLOUDSTACK-873 is not proposed for 4.1.0, but appears to be in >>> CloudPlatform 3.0.6. I may be misinterpreting this, but it appears >>> to be something that will need to go through IP clearance. >>> >>> -chip >> > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service o: 415.315.9385 @johnlkinsella
