[libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] (Updated & fixed) OpenNebula driver, libvirt-0.6.2
Ruben S. Montero
rubensm at dacya.ucm.es
Mon May 25 16:01:06 UTC 2009
First, thank you very much for improving the OpenNebula driver with
your comments. I am totally agree with you suggestion about the
configure.in, it should be a quick fix.
Regarding the licenses, I do not really see the problem. I mean, you
can link with GPL and Apache as libvirt is using LGPL. But the
OpenNebula driver is not using any GPL libraries; I mean, you have to
be license compatible with all the libraries you are using, but do all
those libraries need to be also license compatible among them?. I am
not an expert in license issues so you are probably right.
So, if finally there is some kind of incompatibility with OpenNebula
using Apache2, we have a couple of options:
1- use the conditional compilation. I do not like this one either
2- Change the license of the OpenNebula client API to LPGL (just the
3- License the OpenNebula client API with LGPL for the libvirt project
4- Include a GPL linking exception in those libraries/drivers using GPL
What do you think?
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 04:07:12PM +0200, "Abel Míguez Rodríguez" wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:32:18AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> > > > Here is the One driver & patches for the current git's
>> > > My inclination at this point is to merge the driver and then
>> > we can do
>> > > incremental patches to fix further problems as they arise.
>> > Agreed, unless Abel has a newer version to submit, I'm
>> > inclined to
>> > push it before the end of the week,
>> This version is right to submit.
>> I agree, after merged, any further modification needed will be solved by patches.
>> Related with Daniel's question, we will submit a patch to populate the running VM list at libvirt's startup.
> Okay, I have commited the current set. There is however a few things
> to look at relatively quickly in my opinion:
> - we don't build the driver by default, this is a bit against the rule
> we should fix this
> - but the build depends on the ONE development environment to be
> present, for example OneClient.h header
> - another thing to note is that OpenNebula seems to be released under
> the Apache-2.0 Licence, which is not a problem for tyhe LGPL, but
> may become a problem within qemud if we link it against a GPL (v2?)
> library coming from another driver.
> So I think we should look at improving configure.in to try to locate
> $ONE_LOCATION/include/OneClient.h with ONE_LOCATION coming either from
> the environment, or from --with-one[=DIR] optional directory location or
> from a predefined set of locations.
> Right now the driver is disabled and ONE_LOCATION is assumed from
> configure, but that really need to be fixed IMHO.
> For the Licencing problem, it's a bit tricky, is OpenNebula released
> only as Apache-2.0 ? If yes, then maybe at configure time a check should
> also been made to avoid drivers under GPL and OpenNebula to be built
> together. It's a bit of a pain, and hopefully I get this wrong, but I'm
> afraid otherwise we would be in Licence violation of the GPL2 drivers
> (if any are configured in, I think we have one but I can't remember
> which one right now).
> Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
> daniel at veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
> http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
> Libvir-list mailing list
> Libvir-list at redhat.com
Dr. Ruben Santiago Montero
Distributed System Architecture Group (http://dsa-research.org)
More information about the libvir-list