On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > 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? >
None from me. --David
