Okay, I did a bit of digging. I poked around in the directory in our source to see what we're shipping...
... and I poked around in Debian to look at their copyright file: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/rsyslog/rsyslog_5.8.11-1/rsyslog.copyright This jumps out at me: Files: * Copyright: 2003-2012 Rainer Gerhards and Adiscon GmbH License: GPL-3.0+ and Apache-2.0 (I helped to standardise this copyright file format for Debian, so give me a shout if you need help parsing it.) This stanza, however, tells me that by default, all the files in this package are dual licensed as GPL 3.0 or above, or Apache 2.0. If this is the case, then we do not have a problem. If it is not the case, it also indicates to me who owns the copyright, and who we'd have to contact. I just downloaded the source, and I see COPYING.ASL20 in the root dir... On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > We're still talking about the delta, right? I would argue that the author > of the delta is the Debian developer. Do you disagree? > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < > chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> The upstream license is GPLv2. I don't think it is possible to trace all >> the developers. >> >> On 9/25/12 3:04 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@tumbolia.org> wrote: >> >> >However, Debian only ships open source code, so we know we're good there. >> >What is the upstream license? If the upstream developer is happy with us >> >using it, then as long as we attribute all the correct people, we should >> >be >> >good to go. >> > >> >On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Chiradeep Vittal < >> >chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >NS >> >> > > > -- > NS > -- NS
