We are now again at the exact same point as where Darren was. This is the legal ticket relevant to the license discussion: https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/LEGAL-180
Either we get an ok from legal or we need to find an alternative. Kelven, Chiradeep, are you guys going to chase this ticket? Hugo Sent from my iPhone > On 22 jan. 2014, at 07:04, "Hugo Trippaers" <trip...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Kelven, Chiradeep, > > What license governs the redistribution, what do we include in our notice > file and is that license compatible with the ASF license policy? > > Hugo > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 22 jan. 2014, at 00:44, Kelven Yang <kelven.y...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> Q. Can I redistribute the VI SDK libraries and sample code? >> A. You can redistribute only those parts of the SDK package that have been >> designated as ³distributable code². >> In VI SDK 2.5, the following components can be redistributed: vim.jar, >> vim25.jar. To note developers typically generate web service stubs from >> the WSDL file that is included in the VI SDK using a SOAP toolkit. >> >>>> The stubs source and the compiled stubs can also be distributed. >> >> >> Could this solve our license problem, we discussed before that generating >> our own java stub can give us flexibility to support co-existence of >> different versions of VMware web service API inside CloudStack. >> >> If we see this as urgency, we need to have someone work on to put WSDL >> generation process to maven build >> >> For latest names of VI SDK libraries that can be redistributed visit >> http://vmware.com/go/sdk-redistribution-info >> >> >> >> On 1/21/14, 3:18 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Apparently we can >>> https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-7983 >>> http://markmail.org/thread/ttamcfb4d6azzbw7 >>> >>> >>>> On 1/21/14 2:46 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Chiradeep, >>>> >>>> Even on the generated sources nobody seems willing to state that it is ok >>>> to include them at the moment. Otherwise I would have put them in >>>> already. >>>> >>>> Hugo >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 21 jan. 2014, at 19:32, Chiradeep Vittal >>>>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Suboptimal for? >>>>> Wouldn't the ACS user want the best / supported client libraries? >>>>> Alternatively, can't we just compile the WSDL and check in the >>>>> generated >>>>> sources? Not check-in the WSDL, but the client sources. >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/21/14 7:18 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Chip Childers >>>>>> <chipchild...@apache.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I bet we never got an answer. Frankly, I'd like to see us use >>>>>>> something where the licensing is clear. That, or we don't include >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> WSDL in our repo / distro. >>>>>> >>>>>> Additionally, we are an open source project that is in the business of >>>>>> producing open source software. Depending on non-free and >>>>>> non-opensource libraries is suboptimal, but its worse when there is a >>>>>> open source alternative. >>>>>> >>>>>> --David >>
