On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:49:57PM +0000, Devdeep Singh wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:58 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Regrading support for intel txt > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:33:21PM +0000, Devdeep Singh wrote: > > > The API library and the API documentation are behind an account which > > Intel provides. So should we get in touch with legal for this? If yes, who > > can > > help here? > > > > > > Given this, is it still possible to keep it as a separate profile which > > > is disabled > > by default if legal permits? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Devdeep > > > > This is problematic IMO for 2 reasons: > > > > #1 Community angle: > > =================== > > > > If it's not possible for some to access that library, even if we make it > > it's own > > build target, then how can anyone test it? On one hand, we place a burden > > on ourselves in a similar way for every non-oss dependency. On the other > > hand, the fact that we already *sort of* deal with this already might mean > > that > > the difference is minimal WRT community issues. Have you tried asking > > Intel if > > they would switch to open publication of the library (not for open sourcing > > it, > > although that wouldn't suck). > > I have reached out to them regarding open publication of the library and am > waiting for an answer from them.
ack - thanks > > > > > #2 Legal aspects: > > ================= > > > > Any discussion of the legal aspects will start with a copy of the license > > itself. > > We're stuck without that. We need to understand what we are dealing with > > here in the project first, and then we should bring any questions to legal- > > discuss@a.o after our initial review. > > I have asked them for the license text of the library. Waiting to get it from > them. > ack - thanks - just post it to this thread (or point us to the doc URL) when you have it. > Regards, > Devdeep > > > > -chip > >
