Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 19:22 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Now that raises an interesting question ... if we define our own vendor > > neutral, Apache licensed, interface definition, are we allowed to host the > > source for our own implementation of it that is intended to support a GPL > > licensed work? I have my view on that, but it is an interesting issue. > > That question has IMHO already been answered, as we host the reference > implementations to various JSRs for which other-licensed implementations > exist. So yes, we can host this, if we define the layer or have the > layer definition under Apache license. > > To be clear: I don't want to be a road block here, I just like to have > these questions discussed before incubation begins; nothing is worse > than having Tashi in incubation for a few months, having them started a > community at Apache and then finding out that there are showstoppers > that makes it impossible to continue here. Better get this resolved > before we start.
I would like to provide some concrete information for this discussion. The current implementation defines an interface for manipulating VMs. Using this interface, we've written two VM controllers, one for Xen using command line programs and one for Qemu/KVM using its monitor. We did this because we were concerned about potential licensing issues that may arise if we were to use a C API (with a dynamic library). Am I to understand from this thread that it would somehow be okay to use Xen's C API? If so, can someone be more explicit about what the limitations are? - Michael Ryan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
