Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Regarding the section "Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan"...What do the patents cover/restrict? Is a patent even compatible with ALv2? Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > Plan"...What do the patents cover/restrict? Is a patent even > compatible with ALv2? > Speaking only for myself, Section 3 of ALv2 seems to address patents held by contributors. Or am I misunderstanding the concern around patents? --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >> Plan"...What do the patents cover/restrict? Is a patent even >> compatible with ALv2? >> > > Speaking only for myself, Section 3 of ALv2 seems to address patents > held by contributors. Or am I misunderstanding the concern around > patents? No, if I'm reading ALv2 section 3 right, that essentially says people that use the ALv2-licensed material are granted the right to use the material in the same way that they would if the contributor of the material had a patent on it and granted license to that patent. The proposal, on the other hand, says Citrix has filed for patents on the material they're donating and will continue to do so. I'm wondering what they think the patents are intended to accomplish if, by the ALv2 license, just about anyone is permitted to do just about anything with the code. Don (who INAL) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Patent law isn't the same as Copyright law- the idea that you can "do anything you want" with patents covered by Apache Licensed code will only wind up getting you sued someday (IANAL). Do consult a lawyer if you need advice on how any particular patent may be implemented outside of code received directly under the Apache License. No doubt there is some degree of latitude, but it is far short of what an arbitrary "derivative work" might try to do. > > From: Donald Whytock >To: general@incubator.apache.org >Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:34 PM >Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator > >On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, David Nalley wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >>> Plan"...What do the patents cover/restrict? Is a patent even >>> compatible with ALv2? >>> >> >> Speaking only for myself, Section 3 of ALv2 seems to address patents >> held by contributors. Or am I misunderstanding the concern around >> patents? > >No, if I'm reading ALv2 section 3 right, that essentially says people >that use the ALv2-licensed material are granted the right to use the >material in the same way that they would if the contributor of the >material had a patent on it and granted license to that patent. The >proposal, on the other hand, says Citrix has filed for patents on the >material they're donating and will continue to do so. I'm wondering >what they think the patents are intended to accomplish if, by the ALv2 >license, just about anyone is permitted to do just about anything with >the code. > >Don (who INAL) > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > >
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi Kevin, On 04/04/2012, at 3:17 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > Hi All, > > We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. > > CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an IaaS > cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator functions and > a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators can provision > physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, storage) into an > instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the CloudStack self-service > API and UI for the provisioning and management of virtual machines, virtual > disks, and virtual networks. Additional information is available at > http://cloudstack.org/ and http://docs.cloudstack.org/. > > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few > incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left "XXX" marks by those as > reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the > proposal evolves. > > We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community to > create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all > feedback on the proposal. Thanks. The proposal looks good - I appreciate that you've called out some of the challenges directly. I'm able to help mentor the project, so I've added my name to the wiki. Thanks, Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter http://twitter.com/brettporter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Thanks, Brett. We appreciate your help. -kevin -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett Porter Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:28 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator Hi Kevin, On 04/04/2012, at 3:17 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > Hi All, > > We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. > > CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an IaaS > cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator functions and > a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators can provision > physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, storage) into an > instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the CloudStack self-service > API and UI for the provisioning and management of virtual machines, virtual > disks, and virtual networks. Additional information is available at > http://cloudstack.org/ and http://docs.cloudstack.org/. > > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few > incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left "XXX" marks by those as > reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the > proposal evolves. > > We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community to > create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all > feedback on the proposal. Thanks. The proposal looks good - I appreciate that you've called out some of the challenges directly. I'm able to help mentor the project, so I've added my name to the wiki. Thanks, Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter http://twitter.com/brettporter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, David Nalley wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >>> Plan"...What do the patents cover/restrict? Is a patent even >>> compatible with ALv2? >>> >> >> Speaking only for myself, Section 3 of ALv2 seems to address patents >> held by contributors. Or am I misunderstanding the concern around >> patents? > > No, if I'm reading ALv2 section 3 right, that essentially says people > that use the ALv2-licensed material are granted the right to use the > material in the same way that they would if the contributor of the > material had a patent on it and granted license to that patent. The > proposal, on the other hand, says Citrix has filed for patents on the > material they're donating and will continue to do so. I'm wondering > what they think the patents are intended to accomplish if, by the ALv2 > license, just about anyone is permitted to do just about anything with > the code. > > Don (who INAL) > Hi Don, IANAL either, just trying to understand the concern. So for better or worse software patents exist, as least for those of us in the US, and I, like the vast majority of folks wish they didn't. But they do, and while ALv2 seems to remove enforcement opportunities, it would seem to still provide some defensive patent protection. (e.g. a proprietary software company trying to enforce patents), and sadly, that's a land grab situation with first to grab being the presumptive winner. That does make them considerably less desirable, but not completely so. I think Citrix is speaking of patents that they already have in process - and potentially for things that Citrix employed developers would develop in the future, and not for CloudStack the project in general. (Kevin, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) For better or worse I don't perceive ASF having the desire to or currently the ability to deal with filing for patents, or even if they would be entitled to in this situation. Based on what we both read above, there seems to be at least the (non-lawyerly) perception that there is no threat to users or developers from Citrix acquiring patents. Again, I am not a lawyer, I am specifically not Citrix's lawyer, and further I speak only for myself on this particular matter :) --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > Thanks, Brett. We appreciate your help. > > -kevin > > -Original Message- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett Porter > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:28 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator > > Hi Kevin, > > On 04/04/2012, at 3:17 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. > > > > CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an > IaaS cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator > functions and a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators > can provision physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, > storage) into an instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the > CloudStack self-service API and UI for the provisioning and management of > virtual machines, virtual disks, and virtual networks. Additional > information is available at http://cloudstack.org/ and > http://docs.cloudstack.org/. > > > > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few > incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left "XXX" marks by those as > reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the > proposal evolves. > > > > We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community > to create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all > feedback on the proposal. Thanks. > > The proposal looks good - I appreciate that you've called out some of the > challenges directly. > > I'm able to help mentor the project, so I've added my name to the wiki. > > I'd also like to help, been following you guys for some time and think you have a good community around a great product. I've been looking for a solid Java based alternative to oVirt before finding CloudStack. I also have added myself to the wiki as a mentor. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 21:37, David Nalley wrote: >... > For > better or worse I don't perceive ASF having the desire to or currently > the ability to deal with filing for patents, or even if they would be > entitled to in this situation. I'm not sure that we have a *specific* policy against the ASF filing/holding patents. But I can definitely state that we would have a preference against it. My read of the current Directors doesn't see any immediate change to that policy either. IOW, companies are free to file/hold patents on technology that the ASF ships. No problem, as our License is specifically designed to allow that situation. The ASF itself would like to stay out of patents, however. Cheers, -g ps. I could envision a future where the ASF owns patents in some kind of "open license pool" or somesuch (eg. something like OIN) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects to continue to do so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the CloudStack user community. Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of CloudStack is infringing on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity and defend the community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other CloudStack-friendly entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an unfriendly entity. -kevin (also NAL) -Original Message- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@cloudstack.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:37 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM, David Nalley wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >>> Plan"...What do the patents cover/restrict? Is a patent even >>> compatible with ALv2? >>> >> >> Speaking only for myself, Section 3 of ALv2 seems to address patents >> held by contributors. Or am I misunderstanding the concern around >> patents? > > No, if I'm reading ALv2 section 3 right, that essentially says people > that use the ALv2-licensed material are granted the right to use the > material in the same way that they would if the contributor of the > material had a patent on it and granted license to that patent. The > proposal, on the other hand, says Citrix has filed for patents on the > material they're donating and will continue to do so. I'm wondering > what they think the patents are intended to accomplish if, by the ALv2 > license, just about anyone is permitted to do just about anything with > the code. > > Don (who INAL) > Hi Don, IANAL either, just trying to understand the concern. So for better or worse software patents exist, as least for those of us in the US, and I, like the vast majority of folks wish they didn't. But they do, and while ALv2 seems to remove enforcement opportunities, it would seem to still provide some defensive patent protection. (e.g. a proprietary software company trying to enforce patents), and sadly, that's a land grab situation with first to grab being the presumptive winner. That does make them considerably less desirable, but not completely so. I think Citrix is speaking of patents that they already have in process - and potentially for things that Citrix employed developers would develop in the future, and not for CloudStack the project in general. (Kevin, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) For better or worse I don't perceive ASF having the desire to or currently the ability to deal with filing for patents, or even if they would be entitled to in this situation. Based on what we both read above, there seems to be at least the (non-lawyerly) perception that there is no threat to users or developers from Citrix acquiring patents. Again, I am not a lawyer, I am specifically not Citrix's lawyer, and further I speak only for myself on this particular matter :) --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hello, Looks to be an interesting project!. I'd like to help so I have added myself as a mentor. 2012/4/3 Kevin Kluge : > Hi All, > > We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. > > CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an IaaS > cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator functions and > a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators can provision > physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, storage) into an > instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the CloudStack self-service > API and UI for the provisioning and management of virtual machines, virtual > disks, and virtual networks. Additional information is available at > http://cloudstack.org/ and http://docs.cloudstack.org/. > > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few > incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left "XXX" marks by those as > reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the > proposal evolves. > > We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community to > create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all > feedback on the proposal. Thanks. > > -kevin > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects to > continue to do > so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the CloudStack > user community. > Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of CloudStack >is infringing > on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity and > defend the > community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other > CloudStack-friendly > entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an unfriendly > entity. Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There are many avenues to abuse the patents. Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi The proposal looks good, I used to work for [1] and I am so interested to see a cloud software donated to ASF. I am also willing to help so I added my self as a mentor. [1] - http://www.aserver.com On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Kevin Kluge > wrote: > > > Thanks, Brett. We appreciate your help. > > > > -kevin > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett > Porter > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:28 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > On 04/04/2012, at 3:17 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. > > > > > > CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create > an > > IaaS cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator > > functions and a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators > > can provision physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, > > storage) into an instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the > > CloudStack self-service API and UI for the provisioning and management of > > virtual machines, virtual disks, and virtual networks. Additional > > information is available at http://cloudstack.org/ and > > http://docs.cloudstack.org/. > > > > > > The draft proposal document is available at > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few > > incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left "XXX" marks by those > as > > reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the > > proposal evolves. > > > > > > We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community > > to create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome > all > > feedback on the proposal. Thanks. > > > > The proposal looks good - I appreciate that you've called out some of the > > challenges directly. > > > > I'm able to help mentor the project, so I've added my name to the wiki. > > > > > I'd also like to help, been following you guys for some time and think you > have a good community around a great product. I've been looking for a solid > Java based alternative to oVirt before finding CloudStack. I also have > added myself to the wiki as a mentor. > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi... On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge > wrote: > > Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects to > continue to do > > so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the > CloudStack user community. > > Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of > CloudStack is infringing > > on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity > and defend the > > community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other > CloudStack-friendly > > entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an > unfriendly entity. > > Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with > the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle > with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent > portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell > start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There > are many avenues to abuse the patents. > I read section 3 of [1], and AFAIU and if the above scenario hold does this mean that such company X can sue ASF for example ? Sorry if it is a stupid question but I am no lawyer at all :). [1]- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > > Martijn > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din < nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi... > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst < > martijn.dasho...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge > > wrote: > > > Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects > to > > continue to do > > > so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the > > CloudStack user community. > > > Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of > > CloudStack is infringing > > > on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity > > and defend the > > > community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other > > CloudStack-friendly > > > entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an > > unfriendly entity. > > > > Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with > > the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle > > with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent > > portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell > > start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There > > are many avenues to abuse the patents. > > > > I read section 3 of [1], and AFAIU and if the above scenario hold does this > mean that such company X can sue ASF for example ? IANAL either but I can at least gauge this much from the PR side. If a commercial entity decides to sue the ASF, a highly respected, non-profit organization (charity), it will be the "mother of all negative PR campaigns": an instant kiss of death IMHO. Once kissed, you first turn into an ugly SCO-like toad. Then you die a slow miserable lonely death that everyone looks forward to. I think any company in their right mind would consider this PR dimension and the impact that the action will inevitably have on their image before deciding to litigate against the ASF. > Sorry if it is a stupid > question but I am no lawyer at all :). > > Not stupid at all and perhaps someone can answer this for the both of us. However I presume the worst for safety sake, you can always be litigated against :-). But the best policy is good citizenship and diplomacy on our part, which we've done well as a Foundation. That's why we have the respect in the general community. This is why even if someone has a valid legal case against us, the PR dimension will most likely thwart litigation. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din < > nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi... >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst < >> martijn.dasho...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge >> > wrote: >> > > Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects >> to >> > continue to do >> > > so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the >> > CloudStack user community. >> > > Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of >> > CloudStack is infringing >> > > on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity >> > and defend the >> > > community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other >> > CloudStack-friendly >> > > entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an >> > unfriendly entity. >> > >> > Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with >> > the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle >> > with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent >> > portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell >> > start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There >> > are many avenues to abuse the patents. >> > >> >> I read section 3 of [1], and AFAIU and if the above scenario hold does >> this >> mean that such company X can sue ASF for example ? > > > IANAL either but I can at least gauge this much from the PR side. If a > commercial entity decides to sue the ASF, a highly respected, non-profit > organization (charity), it will be the "mother of all negative PR > campaigns": an instant kiss of death IMHO. Once kissed, you first turn into > an ugly SCO-like toad. Then you die a slow miserable lonely death that > everyone looks forward to. I think any company in their right mind would > consider this PR dimension and the impact that the action will inevitably > have on their image before deciding to litigate against the ASF. > > >> Sorry if it is a stupid >> question but I am no lawyer at all :). >> >> > Not stupid at all and perhaps someone can answer this for the both of us. > > However I presume the worst for safety sake, you can always be litigated > against :-). But the best policy is good citizenship and diplomacy on our > part, which we've done well as a Foundation. That's why we have the respect > in the general community. This is why even if someone has a valid legal > case against us, the PR dimension will most likely thwart litigation. > > Would like to add that it would thwart litigation in favor of a collaborative alternative through engaging the ASF to solve the problem. Because we certainly would not want to be infringing on a valid claim. There are several degrees of freedom available to us to solve valid issues that may arrise but my point is that the PR angle makes these alternatives much more favorable. > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex > > -- Best Regards, -- Alex
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. Looks great! Also looks like you've got plenty of interest, so that's also great :-) Some random thoughts: * It reads like you have some interesting amount of work ahead of you dealing with the legal side of things, but y'all did a very good of explaining it in the proposal I think. * I think the way that you deal with having debian as a dependency is fine; I am also assuming there's nothing _that_ fundamental about the use of debian that someone could not replace it with something different. * I suspect the most challenging GPL dependency could be mysql if you use a lot of mysql-specific features. Fortunately, Apache APR has already come up with a good model for how to limit the licensing dependency on GPL databases, while still allowing the 99% of the people that want to use them to do so (see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/README ). * I don't think it is *needed* to have a full plan for how you deal with every single dependency in the proposal. That sounds like a lot of work. Having such a plan is of course good, but aside from that, you already have a good "plan for a plan" and I think that'd be good enough to start incubation with. * Something similar is probably true for the mentioned website(s) -- assuming they don't involve loads and loads of traffic or scary spam-ridden user forums, it is fine to list them as things-to-do and then tackle the finer details of it during the incubation process, it sounds like some of this stuff will take a while. OTOH if you're shipping thousands of VM images out to people every day, infra may want to say something about that...but that doesn't seem to be the case :) cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org A Day Without Nuclear Fusion Is a Day Without Sunshine On Apr 3, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > Hi All, > > We would like to propose CloudStack to be an Apache Incubator project. > > CloudStack provides control plane software that can be used to create an IaaS > cloud. It includes an HTTP-based API for user and administrator functions and > a web UI for user and administrator access. Administrators can provision > physical infrastructure (e.g., servers, network elements, storage) into an > instance of CloudStack, while end users can use the CloudStack self-service > API and UI for the provisioning and management of virtual machines, virtual > disks, and virtual networks. Additional information is available at > http://cloudstack.org/ and http://docs.cloudstack.org/. > > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. There are a few > incomplete sections in the proposal. We have left "XXX" marks by those as > reminders, and we'll complete those sections in the next few days as the > proposal evolves. > > We're excited about the opportunity to work with ASF and the community to > create an Incubator project for cloud orchestration. We'll welcome all > feedback on the proposal. Thanks. > > -kevin > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to > grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM > and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, > although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. > > The number of mentors should not be an issue. As stated before, in other threads, the number of mentors is unbounded and AOO has 8 as an example. The perspective podling should not feel that the list is too long - more mentors and interest is a good thing. We have much to do, the project is not small, and it would be nice to see the community gracefully pass thru incubation as fast as posible in accordance with incubator standards. More mentors might help in this regard. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > > The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to > > grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM > > and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, > > although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. > > > > > The number of mentors should not be an issue. As stated before, in other > threads, the number of mentors is unbounded and AOO has 8 as an example. > > The perspective podling should not feel that the list is too long - more > mentors and interest is a good thing. We have much to do, the project is > not small, and it would be nice to see the community gracefully pass thru > incubation as fast as posible in accordance with incubator standards. More > mentors might help in this regard. > Indeed > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Leo, thanks for the feedback, I've put a few replies in line. -Original Message- From: Leo Simons [mailto:m...@leosimons.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:31 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > The draft proposal document is available at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. Looks great! Also looks like you've got plenty of interest, so that's also great :-) Some random thoughts: * It reads like you have some interesting amount of work ahead of you dealing with the legal side of things, but y'all did a very good of explaining it in the proposal I think. K> Thanks. We'll have the source and binary dependencies documented shortly. There are a couple of things around BSD-derivative licenses that aren't clear to me. It's good to have mentors. :) * I think the way that you deal with having debian as a dependency is fine; I am also assuming there's nothing _that_ fundamental about the use of debian that someone could not replace it with something different. K> I'm glad to hear that. This was a concern point for me. A previous version of CloudStack used Fedora for the system VM OS, so it can certainly be changed between Linux flavors. It should be possible to switch to a BSD variant, but it would be a fair bit more work, and I'm not sure what kind of i/o throughput would be achieved on the various hypervisors in that case. * I suspect the most challenging GPL dependency could be mysql if you use a lot of mysql-specific features. Fortunately, Apache APR has already come up with a good model for how to limit the licensing dependency on GPL databases, while still allowing the 99% of the people that want to use them to do so (see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/README ). K> thanks, also very helpful. CloudStack uses very few, if any, MySQL-specific features. * I don't think it is *needed* to have a full plan for how you deal with every single dependency in the proposal. That sounds like a lot of work. Having such a plan is of course good, but aside from that, you already have a good "plan for a plan" and I think that'd be good enough to start incubation with. * Something similar is probably true for the mentioned website(s) -- assuming they don't involve loads and loads of traffic or scary spam-ridden user forums, it is fine to list them as things-to-do and then tackle the finer details of it during the incubation process, it sounds like some of this stuff will take a while. OTOH if you're shipping thousands of VM images out to people every day, infra may want to say something about that...but that doesn't seem to be the case :) K> no, not at all. The only meaningful traffic for CloudStack occurs from binary download of the software and the download of the built system VM, which occurs roughly once per installation. cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
I updated the proposal at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. I have included the embedded source dependencies, binary dependencies, and contributor e-mail addresses. There are some open questions in the dependencies (e.g., treatment of dependencies that have no discernible license), but my impression is that these issues do not need resolution before entering incubation. Please correct me if that's wrong. I believe the proposal is now complete, pending additional feedback. -kevin
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > I updated the proposal at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. I have included > the embedded source dependencies, binary dependencies, and contributor > e-mail addresses. There are some open questions in the dependencies (e.g., > treatment of dependencies that have no discernible license), but my > impression is that these issues do not need resolution before entering > incubation. Please correct me if that's wrong. > I didn't look into the updated version of the proposal, but in general yes such issues can be solved while being in the Incubator. > > I believe the proposal is now complete, pending additional feedback. > Give it some more few time and if no more feedback or comments I believe you are ready to start a [VOTE] on the final proposal > > -kevin > > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi Kevin, I made a couple of minor edits. A few more suggestions... I think you could drop the last sentence of the rationale. The ASF doesn't have any strategic goals to cover particular technology areas. Th alignment section looks fine as is, but it's not strictly necessary to speculate on other projects you might use. There's no requirement to depend on other ASF projects instead of other suitable choices. The addition of the dependency and license tables is informative, but I'd leave the actions and remarks for a status page later - as others have said these problems can be resolved in incubation. On that note though - I believe java mail and the server API are available under compatible licenses. You've mentioned there are original contributors now less involved in the code. Are they likely to still be involved in other activities that are part of the decision making of the project? Thanks, Brett On 05/04/2012, at 4:03 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > I updated the proposal at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. I have included the > embedded source dependencies, binary dependencies, and contributor e-mail > addresses. There are some open questions in the dependencies (e.g., > treatment of dependencies that have no discernible license), but my > impression is that these issues do not need resolution before entering > incubation. Please correct me if that's wrong. > > I believe the proposal is now complete, pending additional feedback. > > -kevin > > > B�CB�� [��X��ܚX�KK[XZ[��[�\�[ ][��X��ܚX�P[��X�]܋�\X�K�ܙ�B��܈Y][ۘ[��[X[� �K[XZ[��[�\�[ Z[ [��X�]܋�\X�K�ܙ�B - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Brett, thanks for the comments. I put some responses in line. > -Original Message- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett Porter > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:53 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator > > Hi Kevin, > > I made a couple of minor edits. > > A few more suggestions... > > I think you could drop the last sentence of the rationale. The ASF doesn't > have any strategic goals to cover particular technology area. Sure, will remove it. > > Th alignment section looks fine as is, but it's not strictly necessary to > speculate on other projects you might use. There's no requirement to > depend on other ASF projects instead of other suitable choices. > > The addition of the dependency and license tables is informative, but I'd > leave the actions and remarks for a status page later - as others have said > these problems can be resolved in incubation. That's good. The presence of those columns makes the proposal a bit of a moving target -- either we edit them as we make progress on the unacceptable dependencies or the document becomes out of date. I will remove them and start a separate, active document to track progress. > > On that note though - I believe java mail and the server API are available > under compatible licenses. > > You've mentioned there are original contributors now less involved in the > code. Are they likely to still be involved in other activities that are part > of the > decision making of the project? Yes, Will and Sheng are both influential. Will does engineering management at Citrix and so has input on the day-day activities of many of the initial committers. Sheng provides input on longer term direction for the project based on his observations across the industry. Both will have opinions on how the project should be run. -kevin > > Thanks, > Brett > > On 05/04/2012, at 4:03 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > > > I updated the proposal at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. I have included the > embedded source dependencies, binary dependencies, and contributor e- > mail addresses. There are some open questions in the dependencies (e.g., > treatment of dependencies that have no discernible license), but my > impression is that these issues do not need resolution before entering > incubation. Please correct me if that's wrong. > > > > I believe the proposal is now complete, pending additional feedback. > > > > -kevin > > > > > > > B�KKK > KCB�� [��X��ܚX�KK[XZ[ > > ��[�\�[ > ][��X��ܚX�P[��X�]܋�\X�K�ܙ�B��܈Y][ۘ[��[X[� �K[XZ[ > > ��[�\�[ > Z[ [��X�]܋�\X�K�ܙ�B > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > Brett, thanks for the comments. I put some responses in line. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett > Porter > > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:53 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > I made a couple of minor edits. > > > > A few more suggestions... > > > > I think you could drop the last sentence of the rationale. The ASF > doesn't > > have any strategic goals to cover particular technology area. > > Sure, will remove it. > > > > > Th alignment section looks fine as is, but it's not strictly necessary to > > speculate on other projects you might use. There's no requirement to > > depend on other ASF projects instead of other suitable choices. > This was actually nice to see because it showed just how many ASF projects the software depends on but as you say it's not necessary. > > The addition of the dependency and license tables is informative, but I'd > > leave the actions and remarks for a status page later - as others have > said > > these problems can be resolved in incubation. > > +1 > That's good. The presence of those columns makes the proposal a bit of a > moving target -- either we edit them as we make progress on the > unacceptable dependencies or the document becomes out of date. I will > remove them and start a separate, active document to track progress. > > > > > On that note though - I believe java mail and the server API are > available > > under compatible licenses. > > > > You've mentioned there are original contributors now less involved in the > > code. Are they likely to still be involved in other activities that are > part of the > > decision making of the project? > > Yes, Will and Sheng are both influential. Will does engineering > management at Citrix and so has input on the day-day activities of many of > the initial committers. Sheng provides input on longer term direction for > the project based on his observations across the industry. Both will have > opinions on how the project should be run. > > -kevin > > > > > > Thanks, > > Brett > > > > On 05/04/2012, at 4:03 PM, Kevin Kluge wrote: > > > > > I updated the proposal at > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CloudStackProposal. I have included > the > > embedded source dependencies, binary dependencies, and contributor e- > > mail addresses. There are some open questions in the dependencies (e.g., > > treatment of dependencies that have no discernible license), but my > > impression is that these issues do not need resolution before entering > > incubation. Please correct me if that's wrong. > > > > > > I believe the proposal is now complete, pending additional feedback. > These touch up changes pretty much complete the proposal and we're ready to kick off a [VOTE] thread. Thoughts? -- Best Regards, -- Alex
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
On Apr 8, 2012 4:56 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote: >... > > > > I believe the proposal is now complete, pending additional feedback. > > These touch up changes pretty much complete the proposal and we're ready to > kick off a [VOTE] thread. Thoughts? +1 Discussion has been mellow. Feedback was tweaks. We're definitely past our 72 hour fence. Roll with it... Cheers, -g
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
> These touch up changes pretty much complete the proposal and we're ready to kick off a [VOTE] thread. Thoughts? +1 Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
I find the proposal interesting too. I gave it a lot of though and I am considering getting involved as well. I have a question however for the proponents and supporters of the project. What makes this project different than (almost) all the other ASF projects is that it has a high(er) barrier to entry in terms of hardware requirements. The reality is that such a project has little chances of becoming a viable competitor in the industry without strong support from companies like Citrix (and I salute their commitment). Will such resources be made available to the whole community, how was this envisioned? Thanks, Hadrian On 04/04/2012 04:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. The number of mentors should not be an issue. As stated before, in other threads, the number of mentors is unbounded and AOO has 8 as an example. The perspective podling should not feel that the list is too long - more mentors and interest is a good thing. We have much to do, the project is not small, and it would be nice to see the community gracefully pass thru incubation as fast as posible in accordance with incubator standards. More mentors might help in this regard. Indeed -- Best Regards, -- Alex -- Hadrian Zbarcea Principal Software Architect Talend, Inc http://coders.talend.com/ http://camelbot.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Hi Hadrian, yes, we have been discussing this. There are a number of options today that make the system easier to develop against than it might seem. It's possible to have a single node cloud with KVM, where the CloudStack management server and KVM host are the same server. With XenServer or XCP you can work with a two node system. Or you can have a VM for the management server and a physical host for the hypervisor. There is also a XenServer API simulator available, which would allow development with XenServer with just two VMs (one for the management server and one for the XenServer simulator). CloudStack developers have used these environments for most development to date. We have also developed a software simulator. This simulator emulates hypervisor hosts under management through a single process. Although it was originally built for scalability testing, it should be possible to use it for development and functional testing as well. We have been thinking this would be the best way to enable the larger community to easily develop and test against CloudStack long term. This should work today, but there are no good docs on how to set it up, nor do we have much experience with it in this context. This is something we need to do to help the new community members engage (or we need some intrepid community members to try it and document the successful path). We have also discussed donating and/or hosting build and test infrastructure for pending commits to the project. This would be a public system test environment. Our automated test tools can take a cloud description in JSON and implement it, provided the hosts and storage are already provisioned (e.g., via PXE boot). While we have some good building blocks, we need to improve the automated system tests and implement some glue code to provide a process that can be driven from a web UI. If this is what the community needs I think we will be able to provide the hardware. In terms of timing I am more concerned about the test development and glue to make it all work than the hardware acquisition, and I believe this is a few months away. -kevin > -Original Message- > From: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:hzbar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 6:49 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator > > I find the proposal interesting too. I gave it a lot of though and I am > considering getting involved as well. I have a question however for the > proponents and supporters of the project. > > What makes this project different than (almost) all the other ASF projects is > that it has a high(er) barrier to entry in terms of hardware requirements. The > reality is that such a project has little chances of becoming a viable > competitor in the industry without strong support from companies like Citrix > (and I salute their commitment). Will such resources be made available to the > whole community, how was this envisioned? > > Thanks, > Hadrian > > > > On 04/04/2012 04:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Alex Karasulu > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom > wrote: > >> > >>> The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking > >>> to grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job > >>> at IBM and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if > >>> you need, although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. > >>> > >>> > >> The number of mentors should not be an issue. As stated before, in > >> other threads, the number of mentors is unbounded and AOO has 8 as an > example. > >> > >> The perspective podling should not feel that the list is too long - > >> more mentors and interest is a good thing. We have much to do, the > >> project is not small, and it would be nice to see the community > >> gracefully pass thru incubation as fast as posible in accordance with > >> incubator standards. More mentors might help in this regard. > >> > > > > Indeed > > > > > >> > >> -- > >> Best Regards, > >> -- Alex > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Hadrian Zbarcea > Principal Software Architect > Talend, Inc > http://coders.talend.com/ > http://camelbot.blogspot.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Fiar enough. That being the case, I would like to join as a committer (there are enough great mentors already). Cheers, Hadrian On 04/09/2012 12:15 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote: Hi Hadrian, yes, we have been discussing this. There are a number of options today that make the system easier to develop against than it might seem. It's possible to have a single node cloud with KVM, where the CloudStack management server and KVM host are the same server. With XenServer or XCP you can work with a two node system. Or you can have a VM for the management server and a physical host for the hypervisor. There is also a XenServer API simulator available, which would allow development with XenServer with just two VMs (one for the management server and one for the XenServer simulator). CloudStack developers have used these environments for most development to date. We have also developed a software simulator. This simulator emulates hypervisor hosts under management through a single process. Although it was originally built for scalability testing, it should be possible to use it for development and functional testing as well. We have been thinking this would be the best way to enable the larger community to easily develop and test against CloudStack long term. This should work today, but there are no good docs on how to set it up, nor do we have much experience with it in this context. This is something we need to do to help the new community members engage (or we need some intrepid community members to try it and document the successful path). We have also discussed donating and/or hosting build and test infrastructure for pending commits to the project. This would be a public system test environment. Our automated test tools can take a cloud description in JSON and implement it, provided the hosts and storage are already provisioned (e.g., via PXE boot). While we have some good building blocks, we need to improve the automated system tests and implement some glue code to provide a process that can be driven from a web UI. If this is what the community needs I think we will be able to provide the hardware. In terms of timing I am more concerned about the test development and glue to make it all work than the hardware acquisition, and I believe this is a few months away. -kevin -Original Message- From: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:hzbar...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 6:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator I find the proposal interesting too. I gave it a lot of though and I am considering getting involved as well. I have a question however for the proponents and supporters of the project. What makes this project different than (almost) all the other ASF projects is that it has a high(er) barrier to entry in terms of hardware requirements. The reality is that such a project has little chances of becoming a viable competitor in the industry without strong support from companies like Citrix (and I salute their commitment). Will such resources be made available to the whole community, how was this envisioned? Thanks, Hadrian On 04/04/2012 04:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: The proposal looks good. I'm excited that the community is looking to grow at the ASF. I'm working on similar technology in my day job at IBM and am interested in getting involved. Happy to mentor if you need, although, it has quite a large list now as I look at the Wiki. The number of mentors should not be an issue. As stated before, in other threads, the number of mentors is unbounded and AOO has 8 as an example. The perspective podling should not feel that the list is too long - more mentors and interest is a good thing. We have much to do, the project is not small, and it would be nice to see the community gracefully pass thru incubation as fast as posible in accordance with incubator standards. More mentors might help in this regard. Indeed -- Best Regards, -- Alex -- Hadrian Zbarcea Principal Software Architect Talend, Inc http://coders.talend.com/ http://camelbot.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Hadrian Zbarcea Principal Software Architect Talend, Inc http://coders.talend.com/ http://camelbot.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-
[INFRA] Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
I'll note the request to move over websites. There are three to discuss. - cloudstack.org - This site has a login. There may be the impact of supporting a set of user registrations. How many users? Are user registrations important? - docs.cloudbase.org - This site uses MindTouch TCS[1] Is this software a requirement? Are there other alternatives? Will volunteers with the necessary skills be included on the initial committers list? - confluence.cloudstack.org/dashboard.action - This is at Confluence 4.1.3 with 8 Global Spaces while the ASF is held back to 3.4.9. How critical is the version of Confluence? More discussion of Apache Infrastructure requirements and the work the PPMC will need to do to make the transition happen would help. This is something that was not well explored for OpenOffice.org. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.mindtouch.com/product/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [INFRA] Re: [PROPOSAL][RFC] CloudStack for the Apache Incubator
Inline reply Please don't take my answers as binding, just trying to provide a bit more information. On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > I'll note the request to move over websites. There are three to discuss. > > - cloudstack.org - This site has a login. There may be the impact of > supporting a set of user registrations. How many users? Are user > registrations important? There are about 8,000 interacting users on that website, and about 30,000 that are tracked in the database who have interacted with us via webinars, on site training, etc. I am sure we'd prefer to keep that information as opposed to ditching it, but there might be privacy issues that are problematic as well as some practicalities about moving/handling this, so it's probably not a MUST have, but it definitely is a we'd REALLY like to keep. > > - docs.cloudbase.org - This site uses MindTouch TCS[1] Is this software a > requirement? Are there other alternatives? Will volunteers with the necessary > skills be included on the initial committers list? This is not a software requirement - it fit the bill at the time we deployed it. There are essentially three types of documentation hosted here: * Formal documentation such as installation guides, release notes, etc. Sadly we have a good bit of legacy documentation that's still generated by products like Word that don't promote collaboration well. The balance are in Docbook XML. * Design documents - these are already moving to the confluence site below, so it's just something we need to finish migratiing. * Community contributed KB articles - we haven't yet begun rehoming things here, or even thought about it quite honestly, but should just be a matter of doing it. > > - confluence.cloudstack.org/dashboard.action - This is at Confluence 4.1.3 > with 8 Global Spaces while the ASF is held back to 3.4.9. How critical is the > version of Confluence? To my knowledge, there is no version-specific dependencies. > > More discussion of Apache Infrastructure requirements and the work the PPMC > will need to do to make the transition happen would help. This is something > that was not well explored for OpenOffice.org. > So let me toss another potential issue. For several months we've been slowly working on migrating from Bugzilla (ancient version 3.4.4) to Jira (v4.4.4). That is currently planned to happen in the short term, but I am wondering if perhaps that should halt. One of the functions of the planned migration was to sanitize the data as Bugzilla has non-public Citrix customer contained in the database. That said if moving from 4.4.4 to 4.1 (I think that's the version ASF is using) is to painful, we need to halt that plan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
