As a general statement, I'm pretty sure that if a section of our code
required an artifact that was incompatible with AL 2.0 then we would
have a problem. We can double check that on the legal-discuss@ list.
For packages that optionally require an artifact that was incompatible
with AL 2.0 I must confess that I'm not sure.
I think we should double check both on the legal-discuss@ list. It
would be helpful to have a list of packages, their license, and if
they are required or not.
On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Aaron Peeler wrote:
I would like to highlight that we're not packaging/redistributing
these artifacts and in some cases they are optional depending on how
the Apache VCL code is being used. The perl, perl modules, mysql and
php requirements to get VCL operational are listed in both the
INSTALLATION and README files.
For example the windows drivers are only necessary if using xCAT to
provision bare-metal Windows installations, and even then it is
dependent on the type of hardware one is trying to install. So these
windows OS drivers can vary greatly.
--On October 27, 2009 8:59:05 AM -0700 "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com
* Instructions on installation, prereqs, etc should be clear that a
user must determine the licensing of the technologies that you are
requiring/referring to/downloading. It's not clear to me if that
information is being conveyed. Clearly, you require GPL, LGPL, and
microsoft proprietary artifacts. Wondering how much of this needs to
flow through legal-discuss... Prolly Alan and Matt have thought
about this already.
I was not aware of this. We need to get a full laundry list of
require and why and probably vet it w. legal-disc...@. I agree w/
we should be upfront and in your face about these requirements.
maybe it belongs in the NOTICE file?
* managementnode/bin/install_perl_libs.pl will download install
libraries, IIUC. What are the licenses of these artifacts? Users
need to be made aware of what you are doing for them...
OIT Advanced Computing
College of Engineering-NCSU