I'd say option 1 is the easiest to digest. On that note, are we gaining anything (legal-wise) by switching to vijava? I just uncompressed the download[1]. It bundles the compiled classes found in vim25.jar which is (presumably) VMWare proprietary.
[1] http://vijava.sourceforge.net/ On 2/18/14 11:10 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >#1 would still need licensing sorted - explicitly it would need to be >a Cat A or Cat B license. >https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > >#2 or similar would work I think (though I'd imagine they'd choose >MIT or BSD if going that route) > >#3 A statement that they don't consider the WSDL copyrightable (I >can't imagine they'd go for that, but who knows, makes sense >technically and Feist v Rural seems to suggest that 'information' or >even 'collection of information' isn't copyrightable without an >element of creativity. WSDL by it's nature is a description; and the >phonebook analogy plays well there. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural > >--David > > >On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Chiradeep Vittal ><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> I just pinged the attorney again (there is a live one assigned to this >> question on the VMWare side). >> >> What options will work? If we can provide some concrete options, perhaps >> they will pick >> 1. Provide generated SDK jars in maven repo >> 2. Explicitly add ASL to WSDL >> 3. ? >> >> -- >> Chiradeep >> >> On 2/18/14 7:14 AM, "Hugo Trippaers" <h...@trippaers.nl> wrote: >> >>>Chiradeep, >>> >>>Whats the progress on this? >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Hugo >>> >>> >>>On 22 jan. 2014, at 23:35, Chiradeep Vittal >>><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>
