Thanks Chip. I added some shell scripts in the systemvmtemplate directory -- not sure if you want to add the header to each or leave it to the LICENSE file
On 2/7/13 12:58 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >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
