You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
So I was looking through the licenses in hashicorp/consul and noticed that it vendors go-discover which in turn vendors hasicorp/vic (fork of vmware/vic) which has a rather complex license that appears to include GPL style license components. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is problematic for my use of consul.
Could we consider making vSphere discovery be in a second repository instead of included in this repository? That way people can choose to use vSphere and its licensing if they need it and can feel comfortable with its implications.
It looks like this license issue was introduced in 22221ed (#97). Maybe during the forking of vmware/vic the vendored library was upgraded?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
So I was looking through the licenses in hashicorp/consul and noticed that it vendors go-discover which in turn vendors hasicorp/vic (fork of vmware/vic) which has a rather complex license that appears to include GPL style license components. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is problematic for my use of consul.
Could we consider making vSphere discovery be in a second repository instead of included in this repository? That way people can choose to use vSphere and its licensing if they need it and can feel comfortable with its implications.
It looks like this license issue was introduced in 22221ed (#97). Maybe during the forking of vmware/vic the vendored library was upgraded?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: