On 8/20/12 2:55 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >On 08/20/2012 11:32 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >> >> >> 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. > >If they build the System VM from Ubuntu 12.04 they should have the DHCP >fix already? Probably, but not sure. Debian Wheezy should have it. > >I can't find the thread where this was discussed in. See for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg03011.ht ml > >I still think we should make it easier for users to create a System VM. >Like I already said ( http://goo.gl/EuUoQ ), we should generate a couple >of DEB (or RPM) packages which you can install and turn your clean >install into a System VM. Something I want to take a look at post-4.0 > >Wido Where would the deb/rpm be? Distributed by Apache? Convenience repository? How would we version it or make changes in response to bug reports? Chiradeep
