On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >> >> On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features >> >like snapshotting, cloning and deploying System VMs on RBD. >> > >> >To do this correctly I wrote Java bindings for librbd and librados (part >> >of the Ceph project). >> > >> >These bindings [1] are just like libvirt-java just JNA bindings for >> >these libraries. Since these bindings aren't in Maven central I created >> >a Maven repository on Ceph.com [2] and I added it to the pom.xml of the >> >KVM plugin for the Agent. >> > >> >Can we accept this as a dependency? It's just a Maven dependency which >> >doesn't include any binary code into the Git repo. >> > >> >The bindings are currently GPLv2 licensed since that's what Ceph uses, >> >but does this conflict with the Apache project? I want to make sure it >> >will be included in the OSS builds of CloudStack, so I can change the >> >license if required. >> >> I have to correct myself here. The license is LGPLv2 for both Ceph >> and the Java bindings. >> >> Wido >> > > This is going to be problematic with that license. See: > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > We put things like this in the non-oss build OR specify that they need > to be installed prior to our software being installed / built (calling > them system dependencies). > > It would be *much* easier for it to be re-licensed with a license that > the ASF has approved as compatible with ASLv2. >
Since it looks like you wrote all of this particular piece of software, can you dual license? LGPLv2 and ASLv2? (or BSD or MIT for that matter) --David
