That's still licensed as BSD (the license header is in the file) --David
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > Not all. > http://sourceforge.net/p/vijava/code/283/tree/trunk/src/com/vmware/vim25/mo > /Alarm.java > > > On 2/18/14 12:05 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >>Option 1 still needs licensing sorted. Being on a maven repo still >>doesn't fix the problem for us and our users. >> >>WRT to vijava the classes in source all appear to have a copyright >>header indicating that Steve is the author and licensed under BSD. >>In example: >>http://sourceforge.net/p/vijava/code/283/tree/trunk/src/com/vmware/vim25/A >>gentInstallFailed.java >> >>--David >> >>On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> 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-18 >>>>>>>>0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
