You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Robert Schweikert <rj...@suse.com> on 2012/05/18 19:56:30 UTC
License question
I am not a lawyer, but....
As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released
3.0.2 tarball I stumbled across a license issue. Having already built
3.0.1 packages in OBS I might be in trouble already, but I didn't read
it all and figured I'd ask some questions first.
The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and
appears to be geared toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around
to find a page [1] where it clearly states that 3.0 is licensed under
GPLv3 and 3.1 will be licensed under ASLv2.
In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix
proprietary software program in object code form distributed hereunder."
which would appear to be in conflict with GPLv3 at least, and based on
my interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3.
Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care
whether the code if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention
of starting a political flame war or discussion about license choice. I
am concerned about this from a packagers point of view only.
- It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source
code, all branches?
- Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that
clearly states the license that covers the tree?
- Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF
infrastructure?
- How does the license change affect the master branch? After all,
calling something 3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control
system, or will this be date/commit based, i.e. as of commit X the
master branch is considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with
the creation of the 3.1 branch)
- Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts
like this from the code base? It would be difficult for community
contributors to feel confident/comfortable in sending submit request to
remove artifacts like this from the code base.
Thanks,
Robert
[1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html
--
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei@suse.com
rschweik@ca.ibm.com
781-464-8147
RE: License question
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
The existing EULA and logo should be removed. This is just one of those TODO we did not get to yet but we have already begun to setup processes to removing that along with rest of the potential thirdparty incompatible libraries CloudStack still be may using at this moment.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:04 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: License question
Hi Robert,
If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers.
The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1
And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version, and should be removed.
If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix licensing stuff.
--David
On May 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Robert Schweikert <rj...@suse.com> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but....
>
> As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released 3.0.2 tarball I stumbled across a license issue. Having already built 3.0.1 packages in OBS I might be in trouble already, but I didn't read it all and figured I'd ask some questions first.
>
> The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and appears to be geared toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around to find a page [1] where it clearly states that 3.0 is licensed under GPLv3 and 3.1 will be licensed under ASLv2.
>
> In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix proprietary software program in object code form distributed hereunder." which would appear to be in conflict with GPLv3 at least, and based on my interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3.
>
> Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care whether the code if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention of starting a political flame war or discussion about license choice. I am concerned about this from a packagers point of view only.
>
> - It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source code, all branches?
>
> - Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that clearly states the license that covers the tree?
>
> - Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF infrastructure?
>
> - How does the license change affect the master branch? After all, calling something 3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control system, or will this be date/commit based, i.e. as of commit X the master branch is considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with the creation of the 3.1 branch)
>
> - Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts like this from the code base? It would be difficult for community contributors to feel confident/comfortable in sending submit request to remove artifacts like this from the code base.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
> [1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html
>
> --
> Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
> Tech Lead
> rjschwei@suse.com
> rschweik@ca.ibm.com
> 781-464-8147
Re: License question
Posted by Robert Schweikert <rj...@suse.com>.
On 05/18/2012 02:03 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers.
>
> The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1
>
> And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version, and should be removed.
>
> If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix licensing stuff.
https://github.com/CloudStack/CloudStack/pull/12
Pullrequest
Robert
--
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei@suse.com
rschweik@ca.ibm.com
781-464-8147
Re: License question
Posted by David Avenante <d....@gmail.com>.
In one of my project we build the project with maven (instate of ant) and
we have some plugin like http://code.google.com/p/maven-license-plugin/
So we can address licence issue module by module (automaticly add/change
licence on code header ....)
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers.
>
> The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1
>
> And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version,
> and should be removed.
>
> If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix
> licensing stuff.
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Robert Schweikert <rj...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not a lawyer, but....
> >
> > As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released
> 3.0.2 tarball I stumbled across a license issue. Having already built 3.0.1
> packages in OBS I might be in trouble already, but I didn't read it all and
> figured I'd ask some questions first.
> >
> > The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and
> appears to be geared toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around to
> find a page [1] where it clearly states that 3.0 is licensed under GPLv3
> and 3.1 will be licensed under ASLv2.
> >
> > In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix
> proprietary software program in object code form distributed hereunder."
> which would appear to be in conflict with GPLv3 at least, and based on my
> interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3.
> >
> > Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care
> whether the code if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention of
> starting a political flame war or discussion about license choice. I am
> concerned about this from a packagers point of view only.
> >
> > - It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source
> code, all branches?
> >
> > - Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that
> clearly states the license that covers the tree?
> >
> > - Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF
> infrastructure?
> >
> > - How does the license change affect the master branch? After all,
> calling something 3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control system,
> or will this be date/commit based, i.e. as of commit X the master branch is
> considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with the creation of the
> 3.1 branch)
> >
> > - Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts
> like this from the code base? It would be difficult for community
> contributors to feel confident/comfortable in sending submit request to
> remove artifacts like this from the code base.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> >
> > [1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html
> >
> > --
> > Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> > SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
> > Tech Lead
> > rjschwei@suse.com
> > rschweik@ca.ibm.com
> > 781-464-8147
>
Re: License question
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
Hi Robert,
If you check the actual source, you will find ASLv2 headers.
The page you discovered has a typo, 3.1 should be 3.0.1
And the license, EULA file is an artifact of Citrix commercial version, and should be removed.
If no one steps up I will happily defenestrate all of that Citrix licensing stuff.
--David
On May 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Robert Schweikert <rj...@suse.com> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but....
>
> As I ran a diff between the 3.0.1 tarball and the recently released 3.0.2 tarball I stumbled across a license issue. Having already built 3.0.1 packages in OBS I might be in trouble already, but I didn't read it all and figured I'd ask some questions first.
>
> The source contains a license in build/license that is an EULA and appears to be geared toward the Citrix Product. This made me poke around to find a page [1] where it clearly states that 3.0 is licensed under GPLv3 and 3.1 will be licensed under ASLv2.
>
> In the 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 license it states "The PRODUCT is the Citrix proprietary software program in object code form distributed hereunder." which would appear to be in conflict with GPLv3 at least, and based on my interpretation 3.0.x should still be licensed under GPLv3.
>
> Before I start with my questions let me state that I don't really care whether the code if licensed under ASLv2 or GPLv3. I have no intention of starting a political flame war or discussion about license choice. I am concerned about this from a packagers point of view only.
>
> - It appears to me that build/license should be removed from the source code, all branches?
>
> - Should there not be a LICENSE file at the top of the source tree that clearly states the license that covers the tree?
>
> - Is the plan to create a 3.1 branch once the code base moves to the ASF infrastructure?
>
> - How does the license change affect the master branch? After all, calling something 3.1 vs. 3.0 is an artifact of the source control system, or will this be date/commit based, i.e. as of commit X the master branch is considered ASLv2? (And maybe commit X coincides with the creation of the 3.1 branch)
>
> - Is there someone from Citrix specifically tasked to remove artifacts like this from the code base? It would be difficult for community contributors to feel confident/comfortable in sending submit request to remove artifacts like this from the code base.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
> [1] http://cloudstack.org/about-cloudstack/license.html
>
> --
> Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
> SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
> Tech Lead
> rjschwei@suse.com
> rschweik@ca.ibm.com
> 781-464-8147