On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:47:28PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > It is confusing -- gaah. > I could be persuaded that it could be licensed as Apache. But IANAL and we > went through the legal wringer already on this in Aug/Sep. >
IMO, the best thing to do is to reference them as MIT licensed. On 2/5/13 6:49 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm not sure it applies, I did not copy them, veewee generates the > definitions for you which are like stubs and you modify the > definitions as per your needs. MIT should be compatible with APL? > Besides, we're not including veewee in our codebase, they are just > config files for veewee. Since they come from the Veewee project initially, I think that we should treat them like the system VM config files that we sorted through for 4.0.0. Luckily they are from an MIT licensed project. IMO, we document it as licensed under MIT, and from the Veewee project, in the source code legal docs. > This is not something new, we've veewee definitions in > tools/devcloud/src/deps/boxes for devcloud etc. If this is an issue, > we need to fix it there as well. I think we do need to do that, and I'll take credit for not having them properly attributed way back when. In fact, I'll take care of all of the Veewee config files in one shot. I just created CLOUDSTACK-1198. -chip
