We don't know that it is. We know the vim25.jar is distributed to us from the vmware SDK with different licensing.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
