Reached out to @strikesme and @danwendlandt On 1/21/14 10:14 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <htrippa...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>We are now again at the exact same point as where Darren was. > >This is the legal ticket relevant to the license discussion: >https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/LEGAL-180 > >Either we get an ok from legal or we need to find an alternative. Kelven, >Chiradeep, are you guys going to chase this ticket? > >Hugo > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On 22 jan. 2014, at 07:04, "Hugo Trippaers" <trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Kelven, Chiradeep, >> >> What license governs the redistribution, what do we include in our >>notice file and is that license compatible with the ASF license policy? >> >> Hugo >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 22 jan. 2014, at 00:44, Kelven Yang <kelven.y...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> Q. Can I redistribute the VI SDK libraries and sample code? >>> A. You can redistribute only those parts of the SDK package that have >>>been >>> designated as ³distributable code². >>> In VI SDK 2.5, the following components can be redistributed: vim.jar, >>> vim25.jar. To note developers typically generate web service stubs from >>> the WSDL file that is included in the VI SDK using a SOAP toolkit. >>> >>>>> The stubs source and the compiled stubs can also be distributed. >>> >>> >>> Could this solve our license problem, we discussed before that >>>generating >>> our own java stub can give us flexibility to support co-existence of >>> different versions of VMware web service API inside CloudStack. >>> >>> If we see this as urgency, we need to have someone work on to put WSDL >>> generation process to maven build >>> >>> For latest names of VI SDK libraries that can be redistributed visit >>> http://vmware.com/go/sdk-redistribution-info >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/21/14, 3:18 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Apparently we can >>>> https://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-7983 >>>> http://markmail.org/thread/ttamcfb4d6azzbw7 >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 1/21/14 2:46 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Chiradeep, >>>>> >>>>> Even on the generated sources nobody seems willing to state that it >>>>>is ok >>>>> to include them at the moment. Otherwise I would have put them in >>>>> already. >>>>> >>>>> Hugo >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On 21 jan. 2014, at 19:32, Chiradeep Vittal >>>>>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Suboptimal for? >>>>>> Wouldn't the ACS user want the best / supported client libraries? >>>>>> Alternatively, can't we just compile the WSDL and check in the >>>>>> generated >>>>>> sources? Not check-in the WSDL, but the client sources. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/21/14 7:18 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Chip Childers >>>>>>> <chipchild...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I bet we never got an answer. Frankly, I'd like to see us use >>>>>>>> something where the licensing is clear. That, or we don't include >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> WSDL in our repo / distro. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, we are an open source project that is in the >>>>>>>business of >>>>>>> producing open source software. Depending on non-free and >>>>>>> non-opensource libraries is suboptimal, but its worse when there >>>>>>>is a >>>>>>> open source alternative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --David >>>
