If vim25.jar source is BSD then why are we including it in noredist? mvn install:install-file -Dfile=vim25_51.jar -DgroupId=com.cloud.com.vmware -DartifactId=vmware-vim25 -Dversion=5.1 -Dpackaging=jar
On 2/18/14 1:51 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
