I may be wrong here, and far from being an expert at this, but isn't the
MariaDB connector doing the same thing, but under a Lesser GPL license?
Which would solve a lot of licensing issues (no need to put CloudStack
entirely on GPL).
FG
On 2/20/2014, 5:10 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
Real quick, because I don't know if I will be able to track this
thread in detail starting tonight... Take this as input to the
discussion that the whole community needs to have about the
*potential* problem with the current situation.
Legal documentation as well as application of the "valid license
categories" is tied to the bits in something we distribute. So that
means that we have LICENSE and NOTICE for the source package (with all
code either being valid licenses or developed at the ASF). This same
logic applies to any binary distribution... they have their own legal
documents, and they should pertain to all bits included in that
distribution.
Unlike other ASF projects, we do NOT offer binary builds from ASF
infra. This is where things are fuzzy, and there needs to be a
discussion. We offer "packages" that are pre-compiled. That being
said, we actually offer RPMs that include the nonoss features, while
our community hosted DEBs do not contain those bits. Theoretically
though, the packages should be the place to depend on "system
dependencies".
The other issue is one of "default build" not having any category X
dependencies. There is a fine line between a "system dependency" and
a dependency that is pulled down during the build. We had previously
agreed that the cat X stuff would require manual work and not be
pulled in automatically.
Transitive dependencies are also an issue... if we package them, we
should respect their license and actually need to have them in the
legal docs. Not sure where they stand WRT being pulled in by the
build process...
So... no answers, just a bit of background.
I'm going to be offline (mostly) until Wed of next week. I will try
to watch this thread and rescind my -1 on the RC if we can work our
way through this logic puzzle in a way that satisfies my concerns
about the current state of things.
-chip
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
<animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
Chip, David thanks for the detailed explanation, is one of you taking care of
fixing this issue or we need to find other volunteers
I'm sorry to say that I do not have the available cycles. $dayjob +
getting ready for a few days off has me pretty booked up.
-chip
--
Francois Gaudreault
Architecte de Solution Cloud | Cloud Solutions Architect
fgaudrea...@cloudops.com
514-629-6775
- - -
CloudOps
420 rue Guy
Montréal QC H3J 1S6
www.cloudops.com
@CloudOps_
