'Alessandro Pilotti'; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Participating in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd
> > party code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:32:39PM +, Donal Lafferty wrote:
>
g in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd
> party code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
>
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:32:39PM +, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> > Hi Alessandro,
> >
> > With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc
&g
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:05:12PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:40:17PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> >> Excepting the marketing-speak I agree. :)
>> >>
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:05:12PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:40:17PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> >> Excepting the marketing-speak I agree. :)
> >> Things that we provide governance for should live at the ASF
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:40:17PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> Excepting the marketing-speak I agree. :)
>> Things that we provide governance for should live at the ASF.
>> Things that don't live at the ASF we (as a whole community) shouldn'
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:40:17PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> Excepting the marketing-speak I agree. :)
> Things that we provide governance for should live at the ASF.
> Things that don't live at the ASF we (as a whole community) shouldn't
> meddle with, and they should feel free to live elsewher
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 04:03:43PM +, Donal Lafferty wrote:
>> > > 4. Finally, where is the best place for 3rd party plugins? This point
>> > > was
>> > raised in relation to the API client for C#. Any preferences for leaving
>> > 3r
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 04:03:43PM +, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> > > 4. Finally, where is the best place for 3rd party plugins? This point
> > > was
> > raised in relation to the API client for C#. Any preferences for leaving
> > 3rd
> > party material stay in the developer's repo, or the 'ex
> > 4. Finally, where is the best place for 3rd party plugins? This point was
> raised in relation to the API client for C#. Any preferences for leaving 3rd
> party material stay in the developer's repo, or the 'extras' repo?
> >
>
> The term 3rd party confuses me. In your example, you were ta
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:22:35PM +, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> Okay, so the context for adding the phase 1 Hyper-V plugin to the actual
> release was to smooth the way for newbies. Adding features to the community
> code can be tricky for non-committers. Recall that last week I posted
> det
t;
> DL
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alessandro Pilotti [mailto:a...@pilotti.it]
> > Sent: 06 February 2013 00:09
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
> >
&
you made it sound like we would move to another
> > approach in the future. Why don't we head down that path?
> >
> >>
> >> DL
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com]
&
the developer's repo, or the 'extras' repo?
DL
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 05 February 2013 21:46
> To: Donal Lafferty
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Redistribu
Can I not use the process for this file?
>
> It could be, but you made it sound like we would move to another
> approach in the future. Why don't we head down that path?
>
>>
>> DL
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ahma
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Donal Lafferty
wrote:
> To be clear, the 3rd party dependency is now limited to code written by
> Cloud.com, now owned by Citrix Systems.
>
> The background is that in 2010, Chiradeep wrote hyperv.py for the Diablo
> release of OpenStack. The source is clearly co
It could be, but you made it sound like we would move to another
approach in the future. Why don't we head down that path?
>
> DL
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 05 February 2013 20:49
>> To:
DL
> -Original Message-
> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 05 February 2013 20:49
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
>
> +1 for write new apache code as per s
+1 for write new apache code as per spec. since thats what will eventually
have to happen.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> > wrote:
> >> I'd like Donal to
On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> wrote:
>> I'd like Donal to offer up an alternative implementation if possible. Is
>> this the long-term supportable implementation? Or is it just a hack to get
>> things moving?
>
> OK - the
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
wrote:
> I'd like Donal to offer up an alternative implementation if possible. Is
> this the long-term supportable implementation? Or is it just a hack to get
> things moving?
OK - the thread on legal-discuss@a.o seems to have wound down. For
tho
oudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
>
> Calling WMI from Python is a short term solution to allow for proof of
> concept.
>
> In the immediate term, the Python code in the repo can be changed out for a
> derivative
ed a Java stack for access to WMI via WS-Man.
DL
> -Original Message-
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com]
> Sent: 31 January 2013 21:56
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache Lice
I'd like Donal to offer up an alternative implementation if possible. Is
this the long-term supportable implementation? Or is it just a hack to get
things moving?
On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
> wrote:
>> As a non-committer, developi
Okay.
If you've any questions give me a shout.
DL
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 31 January 2013 18:17
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
wrote:
> As a non-committer, developing in the Apache repository was never an option.
>
> Would Citrix want the Hyper-V driver it bought with Cloud.com?
>
> Is there a NOTICE-based means of including Apache Licence 2.0 code in the
> repository that
/paste job from the original driver.
> >
> >Rather than use the current driver, I could use the driver from Diablo,
> >which is wholly copyright of Cloud.com (now Citrix)
> >
> >DL
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Nal
m Diablo,
>which is wholly copyright of Cloud.com (now Citrix)
>
>DL
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: 31 January 2013 05:35
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Redistributi
On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:36 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Donal Lafferty
> wrote:
>> I have a specific question on incorporating existing code under Apache
>> License 2.0 that I forgot to ask earlier in the month.
>>
>> My Hyper-V plugin calls down to modified version
t: Re: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Donal Lafferty
> wrote:
> > I have a specific question on incorporating existing code under Apache
> License 2.0 that I forgot to ask earlier in the month.
> >
> &g
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Donal Lafferty
wrote:
> I have a specific question on incorporating existing code under Apache
> License 2.0 that I forgot to ask earlier in the month.
>
> My Hyper-V plugin calls down to modified versions of the OpenStack Nova
> driver for Hyper-V.
>
> In my rep
I will try to decipher this tomorrow. We should assume its OK for the
purpose of merging in the code, as we are talking about a compatible
license.
- chip
Sent from my iPhone.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
wrote:
> I wish this was brought to the attention of this list earlier.
I wish this was brought to the attention of this list earlier.
This wasn't documented in the FS AFAIK.
On 1/30/13 4:19 PM, "Donal Lafferty" wrote:
>I have a specific question on incorporating existing code under Apache
>License 2.0 that I forgot to ask earlier in the month.
>
>My Hyper-V plugin
32 matches
Mail list logo
