On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:47 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] include vhd-util in system vm template? >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:00:57AM -0700, Edison Su wrote: >> > Regarding to bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK- >> 2481, there is no vhd-util installed in system vm template, thus certain >> storage related operations failed. >> > As discussed before, vhd-util binary is licensed under BSD and >> GPL(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-30), it should be >> ok to included in system vm template, right? >> >> Edison - The issue isn't if we can include it in a built system VM really. >> We are >> building those from a number of GPL projects (obviously including the OS >> itself). >> >> The issue with the legal stuff is how we tie to that software and if we >> intend >> to distribute it from ASF infra. As long as we don't store the utility in >> our >> version control, and do not actually ship it from ASF hardware, we can >> consider it OK IMO. The inclusion of that utility will need to be part of >> the >> system VM build config, which we do store in the repo obviously. > I agree. We will not store that utility in ASF cloudstack git repository. And > vhd-utility is same as any other GPL binary we already installed in system vm > template. > > For example, in the system vm build > script(tools/appliance/definitions/systemvmtemplate/postinstall.sh): > > There is one line code like: > wget > http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/h/haproxy/haproxy_1.4.8-1_i386.deb > > then why we can't do the following: > > wget http://some-place/vhd-util -O /bin/ > >
This doesn't seem to pollute our releases, so I don't see a difference between haproxy and vhd-util, or a problem in general. --David
