On 9/24/12 5:35 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Chiradeep Vittal ><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 9/21/12 8:37 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >>><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I am unable to resolve >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-147. >>>> Perhaps we need a cleanroom implementation or an exception. >>>> CLOUDSTACK-147 is the only one in "Unresolved" state >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> -- >>>> Chiradeep >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Wow, this is fantastic news! >>> >>>Yes, thee RAT stuff probably needs to be adjusted a bit (which I'll >>>happily own). We also need to do the licensing stuff for the files >>>originally included from other projects (again, I'm more than willing >>>to get that done early next week). >>> >>>For that unresolved issue, perhaps we can try what Joe did for >>>CLOUDSTACK-146? Does someone want to try and track down the orig >>>developer? If not, this is a specific item that we can ask for an >>>exception on from the legal folks. >>> >>>-chip >> >> There is no "original developer", it is a delta from the stock Debian >> config. > >By "original developer", I meant that we could go to the source >project for the file itself and ask what claims they believe they have >on the file (and / or willingness to change). Does it make sense to >try that? Sorry, let me clarify. The config file is probably authored by Debian developers, likely based on a template from the original authors. That is, there are multiple developers involved unlike the dnsmasq case which had a single author. Given that the delta from the Debian config is a few lines of key-value bindings, we can either A) vote on whether this constitutes an acceptable use B) ask for legal ruling C) develop some way of patching the original with this delta. -- Chiradeep
