Hi Robert, If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers.
The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1 And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version, and should be removed. If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix licensing stuff. --David On May 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Robert Schweikert <rjsch...@suse.com> wrote: > I am not a lawyer, but.... > > As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released 3.0.2 > tarball I stumbled across a license issue. Having already built 3.0.1 > packages in OBS I might be in trouble already, but I didn't read it all and > figured I'd ask some questions first. > > The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and appears to > be geared toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around to find a page > [1] where it clearly states that 3.0 is licensed under GPLv3 and 3.1 will be > licensed under ASLv2. > > In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix > proprietary software program in object code form distributed hereunder." > which would appear to be in conflict with GPLv3 at least, and based on my > interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3. > > Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care > whether the code if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention of > starting a political flame war or discussion about license choice. I am > concerned about this from a packagers point of view only. > > - It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source code, > all branches? > > - Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that > clearly states the license that covers the tree? > > - Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF > infrastructure? > > - How does the license change affect the master branch? After all, calling > something 3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control system, or will > this be date/commit based, i.e. as of commit X the master branch is > considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with the creation of the 3.1 > branch) > > - Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts like > this from the code base? It would be difficult for community contributors to > feel confident/comfortable in sending submit request to remove artifacts like > this from the code base. > > Thanks, > Robert > > > [1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html > > -- > Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU > SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX > Tech Lead > rjsch...@suse.com > rschw...@ca.ibm.com > 781-464-8147
