On 01/14/2015 07:28 AM, Csaba Henk wrote: > Hi, > > I hope I'm addressing the right list -- if not, please point > me where it's appropriate. > > We (Manila developers) plan to start a new side-project that would > be hosted on Stackforge. It's tentatively named "Manila Image Project", > although it would not necessarily be Manila specific. > > It's aim is to provide infrastructure for building custom VM images.
Before we even get to the specific licensing questions - can I ask why you would not either use the existing tool diskimage-builder as it is or join forces and add features if it does not meet your needs? > So far so good. > > What we are puzzled on is the license. This is something we have to > figure out before we think of setting up the project. In general it's > understood that Apache License (v2) is preferred. Question: > is that a strict requirement on Stackforge or just a suggestion? > > - Lot of related previous art are GPL/LGPL licensed in entirety or > partially so we have to know if can use them. > > - Note that the image project is different from standard Openstack > related projects because it's a "meta-tool", like a compiler: > you don't deploy it on site, what you deploy is it's outcome > (a VM image). > > - AFAIU #1: the VM image (the output of the tool) is considered to be > a distribution of all the sofware contained in it, which means that > an image builder has to comply with licensing of these software > individually, and patches that are applied on the sources might be > constrained in terms of licensing (if the source is covered by a > copyleft license). So it's not feasible to have a pure > APLv2 image builder anyway. What licensing of the image builder > itself (ie. not the patches) has an impact on is the "scaffolding" > bundled with the image (init scripts, etc). > > - AFAIU #2: the above concerns the one who would like to use and customize > the image builder; regarding the end user who just receives and deploys > the image, and applies changes/updates to it from the distributor > of the image (if there is such a feature), the distributor is free > to specify the terms of usage, as long as the image is made of open > source software. > > Please correct / clarify / debunk / confirm my ideas above, and > explain what is implied wrt. / required for eligibility of Stackforge > hosting. > > Thanks, > Csaba > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-Infra mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
