In one of my project we build the project with maven (instate of ant) and we have some plugin like http://code.google.com/p/maven-license-plugin/ So we can address licence issue module by module (automaticly add/change licence on code header ....)
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > 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 >
