On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mike McClurg <mike.mccl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:12 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >> I just looked at xenserverjava (the version shipped today 5.6.100-1, >> and 6.0.0-1) >> >> However, while there is a copy of ASLv2 in the source, it does so >> because some dependencies that it uses are licensed under ASLv2, but >> the actual code itself has only GPLv2 headers. > > David, > > Thanks for spotting that. As I said, we should have no problem > changing the license to something more suitable. I have a few > questions. > > - What is the best license to release this software under? I expect > that a permissive, BSD-like license would be acceptable for the Apache > Foundation, yes? > > - Will it be necessary to also release the API generation code as > well? This is something I want to do anyway, but I want to know if it > will be required for the Apache Foundation. > > - Will we have to re-license and re-publish previously released > versions of the xenserverjava library? Which versions does CloudStack > depend on? Would it instead be sufficient to re-license the library in > the next version of XenServer? > > Thanks, > > Mike
Hi Mike: MIT, BSD and ASLv2 seem reasonable choices - see this page[1] for details on what is acceptable: I can't speak for the folks at the ASF - perhaps asking on legal@ or filing a bug in Legal's Jira instance would get you a more qualified response. My question on this would be - is there any reason not to release the generating code? Today, CS uses 5.6.100 iirc - in my mind it makes sense to use the latest and greatest - but I also am not maintaining the code that does the work. Perhaps they will weigh in on the matter. --David [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#category-a
