On 8/14/12 10:33 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >On 8/14/12 6:20 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>I'm trying to kick off conversation with this thread... >> >>I know that people have been looking at the System VM licensing and >>distribution issues from various angles, but I'm not sure we came to a >>consensus on how to deal with the system VMs overall. >> >>AFAIK, we have two outstanding issues: >> >>1 - We have a bunch of configuration / code in the patches folder of >>our source tree that *may* have licensing issues. > >IANAL, but config files that do not have license text already should not >have any issue? >Especially since there is no other way to configure the software? >About half the config files are original work (not derived), the rest can >be supplied as patch files to the originals. > >Not sure that supplying patches is any different from distributing >modified config files though. > > >>2 - We need to initiate a request to ASF Legal for permission to >>distribute a system VM template (including the GPL OS and software) >>from ASF infrastructure, OR figure out how the community can >>distribute valid system VMs outside of ASF. > >Wido has some good suggestions here: >http://goo.gl/EuUoQ > > >1. Host convenience binaries on say Sourceforge >2. Supply the build script so that folks can build it themselves. Following up from the IRC discussion: 1. Regarding license of configuration files, I have raised an issue with Legal: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-146 2. Regarding the iptables deb for fixing dhcp behavior for Ubuntu VMs, I have a proposal: A. Since the system vm cannot be distributed, we will have to host it as a convenience binary somewhere. This hosted version can certainly have the DHCP fix B. For those who want to build the system vm from scratch, they will not get the DHCP/iptables fix but are welcome to install the fix as a post-build procedure. -- Chiradeep
