You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com> on 2013/02/06 13:32:39 UTC
Participating in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd party
code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
Hi Alessandro,
With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc at https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/original-feature-spec.html . The design seeks to avoid installing an agent on the Hyper-V server, which differs OpenStack's approach.
With respect to source code donations, is it feasible to remove the Cloud.Com sections of the OpenStack driver?
DL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandro Pilotti [mailto:ap@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
>
> Hi guys,
>
> My company is writing and maintaining the current OpenStack Nova Hyper-V
> driver. We are also working on a CloudStack Hyper-V driver, I'd be glad to
> contribute the code that we have and our experience with Hyper-V.
> Unfortunately due to our commitment on OpenStack, we didn't manage to
> finish it yet, but I'd be very glad if we could join your efforts on that.
>
> If possible, we would also be happy to contribute our OpenStack Python
> code referenced in this thread.
>
> My IRC nick on Freenode is alexpilotti in case you'd like to have a talk about it.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alessandro Pilotti
> Cloudbase Solutions | CEO
> -------------------------------------
> MVP ASP.Net / IIS
> Windows Azure Insider
> Red Hat Certified Engineer
> -------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 23:40 , Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Donal Lafferty
> > <do...@citrix.com> 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 copyrighted Cloud.com (see
> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/diablo/nova/virt/hyperv.p
> y). The contributors license doesn't assign the copyright (see
> https://rackspace.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=XFNNZV3W23X
> E7N), rather it provides a perpetual license. The code in this file was updated
> to remove dependencies on OpenStack and allow it to understand
> CloudStack commands, so it cannot be reused unmodified.
> >>
> >> Since the code is going away after this release, a rewrite would have a
> very short lifetime.
> >>
> >
> > Honestly, this question caused the feature to not make it into 4.1.0
> > (plus I believe there were other outstanding questions raised) . So
> > we are really talking about 4.2.0.
> >
> >> Citrix has already donated a chunk of cloud.com IP to Apache CloudStack.
> 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: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@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 spec. since thats what will
> >>> +eventually
> >>> have to happen.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
> >>> <ru...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> >>>>> <Ch...@citrix.com> 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
> >>>>> those interested, you can read it at [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The tl;dr version is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This isn't a legal problem, but it's a community issue. We have the
> >>>>> legal "right" to use that code, based on it's stated license. We do
> >>>>> NOT have the right to change the copyright headers, only to add our
> >>>>> own for the specific files where there were material changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The community issue is more important though (and by community,
> we
> >>>>> are talking about the broader OSS community). The suggestion is
> >>>>> that we either (1) ask for permission before including this code in
> >>>>> our repo, or (2) find a way to use it as a dependent library.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given it's source (and what Donal has told me offline), I think we
> >>>>> are better off having this written as pure Apache code. If that's
> >>>>> not a possibility, then asking to include the code is important.
> >>>>> And further, we need to determine if we are going to "fork it" or
> >>>>> "maintain an upstream relationship" with the source.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to re-write as pure Apache code
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -chip
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ajmuxmxfdrcurswp
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
> >>>>>>> <do...@citrix.com> 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 originated with the OpenStack project?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Should I put the driver in the 'extras' folder?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what procedures are available.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, quite honestly, we don't know either. We've sought out advice
> >>>>>>> from mentors and they've pointed us to legal-discuss, and that
> >>>>>>> conversation is happening there now. Lets not get too concerned
> >>>>>>> until we find out what the folks who do know say and we can figure
> a
> >>> path from there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --David
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
Re: Participating in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd
party code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:46:28AM +0000, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply. See below.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: 06 February 2013 15:28
> > To: Donal Lafferty
> > Cc: '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 +0000, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> > > Hi Alessandro,
> > >
> > > With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc
> > at https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/original-feature-spec.html . The
> > design seeks to avoid installing an agent on the Hyper-V server, which differs
> > OpenStack's approach.
> > >
> > > With respect to source code donations, is it feasible to remove the
> > Cloud.Com sections of the OpenStack driver?
> >
> > Donal - I don't quite follow what you are asking here. Can you ellaborate
> > please?
> [DL]
> I was wondering how Hyper-V support could be added to Apache CloudStack. Without writing out the Cloud.com bits, Alessandro would face the same IP concerns that I faced last week.
>
Alessandro, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Donal, I think that the statement Alessandro made was:
> We are also working on a CloudStack Hyper-V driver, I'd be glad to
> contribute the code that we have and our experience with Hyper-V."
So it *would* have to come through the IP clearance process, since it
seems to have been done outside of the community (we can help with that
Alessandro), but I don't think this is a discussion about code from OS.
Am I not interpreting things correctly?
-chip
RE: Participating in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd
party code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
Posted by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com>.
Sorry for the late reply. See below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: 06 February 2013 15:28
> To: Donal Lafferty
> Cc: '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 +0000, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> > Hi Alessandro,
> >
> > With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc
> at https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/original-feature-spec.html . The
> design seeks to avoid installing an agent on the Hyper-V server, which differs
> OpenStack's approach.
> >
> > With respect to source code donations, is it feasible to remove the
> Cloud.Com sections of the OpenStack driver?
>
> Donal - I don't quite follow what you are asking here. Can you ellaborate
> please?
[DL]
I was wondering how Hyper-V support could be added to Apache CloudStack. Without writing out the Cloud.com bits, Alessandro would face the same IP concerns that I faced last week.
Re: Participating in Hyper-V support [Was RE: Redistributing 3rd party code licensed under Apache License 2.0]
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:32:39PM +0000, Donal Lafferty wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> With respect to CloudStack Hyper-V support, have a look at the design doc at https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/original-feature-spec.html . The design seeks to avoid installing an agent on the Hyper-V server, which differs OpenStack's approach.
>
> With respect to source code donations, is it feasible to remove the Cloud.Com sections of the OpenStack driver?
Donal - I don't quite follow what you are asking here. Can you
ellaborate please?
>
> DL
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alessandro Pilotti [mailto:ap@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
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > My company is writing and maintaining the current OpenStack Nova Hyper-V
> > driver. We are also working on a CloudStack Hyper-V driver, I'd be glad to
> > contribute the code that we have and our experience with Hyper-V.
> > Unfortunately due to our commitment on OpenStack, we didn't manage to
> > finish it yet, but I'd be very glad if we could join your efforts on that.
> >
> > If possible, we would also be happy to contribute our OpenStack Python
> > code referenced in this thread.
> >
> > My IRC nick on Freenode is alexpilotti in case you'd like to have a talk about it.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alessandro Pilotti
> > Cloudbase Solutions | CEO
> > -------------------------------------
> > MVP ASP.Net / IIS
> > Windows Azure Insider
> > Red Hat Certified Engineer
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 5, 2013, at 23:40 , Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Donal Lafferty
> > > <do...@citrix.com> 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 copyrighted Cloud.com (see
> > https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/stable/diablo/nova/virt/hyperv.p
> > y). The contributors license doesn't assign the copyright (see
> > https://rackspace.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=XFNNZV3W23X
> > E7N), rather it provides a perpetual license. The code in this file was updated
> > to remove dependencies on OpenStack and allow it to understand
> > CloudStack commands, so it cannot be reused unmodified.
> > >>
> > >> Since the code is going away after this release, a rewrite would have a
> > very short lifetime.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Honestly, this question caused the feature to not make it into 4.1.0
> > > (plus I believe there were other outstanding questions raised) . So
> > > we are really talking about 4.2.0.
> > >
> > >> Citrix has already donated a chunk of cloud.com IP to Apache CloudStack.
> > 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: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@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 spec. since thats what will
> > >>> +eventually
> > >>> have to happen.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
> > >>> <ru...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> > >>>>> <Ch...@citrix.com> 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
> > >>>>> those interested, you can read it at [1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The tl;dr version is:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This isn't a legal problem, but it's a community issue. We have the
> > >>>>> legal "right" to use that code, based on it's stated license. We do
> > >>>>> NOT have the right to change the copyright headers, only to add our
> > >>>>> own for the specific files where there were material changes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The community issue is more important though (and by community,
> > we
> > >>>>> are talking about the broader OSS community). The suggestion is
> > >>>>> that we either (1) ask for permission before including this code in
> > >>>>> our repo, or (2) find a way to use it as a dependent library.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Given it's source (and what Donal has told me offline), I think we
> > >>>>> are better off having this written as pure Apache code. If that's
> > >>>>> not a possibility, then asking to include the code is important.
> > >>>>> And further, we need to determine if we are going to "fork it" or
> > >>>>> "maintain an upstream relationship" with the source.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1 to re-write as pure Apache code
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -chip
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ajmuxmxfdrcurswp
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 1/31/13 10:16 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Donal Lafferty
> > >>>>>>> <do...@citrix.com> 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 originated with the OpenStack project?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Should I put the driver in the 'extras' folder?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what procedures are available.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So, quite honestly, we don't know either. We've sought out advice
> > >>>>>>> from mentors and they've pointed us to legal-discuss, and that
> > >>>>>>> conversation is happening there now. Lets not get too concerned
> > >>>>>>> until we find out what the folks who do know say and we can figure
> > a
> > >>> path from there.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --David
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
>
>