On 05/21/2013 09:53 PM, David Nalley wrote:
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)
I wrote all the code. So I just released version 0.1.1 which is licensed
ASLv2.
I just went for LGPLv2 because I needed some license. These are just
bindings, so I don't care that much.
Any objections against using this?
Wido
--David
