On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:32:39PM +0000, Donal Lafferty wrote: > Hi Alessandro, > > With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc at > https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/original-feature-spec.html . The design > seeks to avoid installing an agent on the Hyper-V server, which differs > OpenStack's approach. > > With respect to source code donations, is it feasible to remove the Cloud.Com > sections of the OpenStack driver?
Donal - I don't quite follow what you are asking here. Can you ellaborate please? > > DL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alessandro Pilotti [mailto:a...@pilotti.it] > > Sent: 06 February 2013 00:09 > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0 > > > > Hi guys, > > > > My company is writing and maintaining the current OpenStack Nova Hyper-V > > driver. We are also working on a CloudStack Hyper-V driver, I'd be glad to > > contribute the code that we have and our experience with Hyper-V. > > Unfortunately due to our commitment on OpenStack, we didn't manage to > > finish it yet, but I'd be very glad if we could join your efforts on that. > > > > If possible, we would also be happy to contribute our OpenStack Python > > code referenced in this thread. > > > > My IRC nick on Freenode is alexpilotti in case you'd like to have a talk > > about it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alessandro Pilotti > > Cloudbase Solutions | CEO > > ------------------------------------- > > MVP ASP.Net / IIS > > Windows Azure Insider > > Red Hat Certified Engineer > > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 2013, at 23:40 , Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Donal Lafferty > > > <donal.laffe...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> To be clear, the 3rd party dependency is now limited to code written by > > Cloud.com, now owned by Citrix Systems. > > >> > > >> The background is that in 2010, Chiradeep wrote hyperv.py for the Diablo > > release of OpenStack. The source is clearly copyrighted Cloud.com (see > > https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/diablo/nova/virt/hyperv.p > > y). The contributors license doesn't assign the copyright (see > > https://rackspace.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=XFNNZV3W23X > > E7N), rather it provides a perpetual license. The code in this file was > > updated > > to remove dependencies on OpenStack and allow it to understand > > CloudStack commands, so it cannot be reused unmodified. > > >> > > >> Since the code is going away after this release, a rewrite would have a > > very short lifetime. > > >> > > > > > > Honestly, this question caused the feature to not make it into 4.1.0 > > > (plus I believe there were other outstanding questions raised) . So > > > we are really talking about 4.2.0. > > > > > >> Citrix has already donated a chunk of cloud.com IP to Apache CloudStack. > > Can I not use the process for this file? > > > > > > It could be, but you made it sound like we would move to another > > > approach in the future. Why don't we head down that path? > > > > > >> > > >> DL > > >> > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com] > > >>> Sent: 05 February 2013 20:49 > > >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > >>> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License > > 2.0 > > >>> > > >>> +1 for write new apache code as per spec. since thats what will > > >>> +eventually > > >>> have to happen. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen > > >>> <run...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal > > >>>>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> I'd like Donal to offer up an alternative implementation if > > >>>>>> possible. Is this the long-term supportable implementation? Or is > > >>>>>> it just a hack to > > >>>> get > > >>>>>> things moving? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> OK - the thread on legal-discuss@a.o seems to have wound down. > > For > > >>>>> those interested, you can read it at [1]. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The tl;dr version is: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This isn't a legal problem, but it's a community issue. We have the > > >>>>> legal "right" to use that code, based on it's stated license. We do > > >>>>> NOT have the right to change the copyright headers, only to add our > > >>>>> own for the specific files where there were material changes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The community issue is more important though (and by community, > > we > > >>>>> are talking about the broader OSS community). The suggestion is > > >>>>> that we either (1) ask for permission before including this code in > > >>>>> our repo, or (2) find a way to use it as a dependent library. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Given it's source (and what Donal has told me offline), I think we > > >>>>> are better off having this written as pure Apache code. If that's > > >>>>> not a possibility, then asking to include the code is important. > > >>>>> And further, we need to determine if we are going to "fork it" or > > >>>>> "maintain an upstream relationship" with the source. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thoughts? > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 to re-write as pure Apache code > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -chip > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ajmuxmxfdrcurswp > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty > > >>>>>>> <donal.laffe...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> As a non-committer, developing in the Apache repository was > > never > > >>>>>>>> an option. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Would Citrix want the Hyper-V driver it bought with Cloud.com? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Is there a NOTICE-based means of including Apache Licence 2.0 > > >>>>>>>> code in the repository that originated with the OpenStack project? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Should I put the driver in the 'extras' folder? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what procedures are available. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So, quite honestly, we don't know either. We've sought out advice > > >>>>>>> from mentors and they've pointed us to legal-discuss, and that > > >>>>>>> conversation is happening there now. Lets not get too concerned > > >>>>>>> until we find out what the folks who do know say and we can figure > > a > > >>> path from there. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> --David > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > >
