September 2014 - legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Licensing of documentation
by Richard Fontana 16 Mar '15

16 Mar '15

Hi, Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice: Copyright © 2013 OpenStack Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. followed immdiately by a box that says: Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode This github repository suggests at quickest glance that Apache License 2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impression that CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org. Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of the upstream documentation in our product documentation and we want to make sure we get the licensing right. Thanks! Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc.

4 6

CCLA not available anywhere except the non-printable/non-downloadable esign app?
by Luis Villa 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

Hey, all- I was trying to look at the CCLA, and there doesn't appear to be a copy of it anywhere other than the e-sign form. Is that deliberate? If not, can it be posted somewhere in a downloadable/printable-for-review format? And of course, if I'm simply missing it, I'd recommend linking to it from the following pages, which is where I looked: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/How_To_Contribute#Contributors_License_Agre… https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HowToUpdateCorporateCLA (The first link has a "preview" of the ICLA but not the CCLA.) Thanks- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*

5 12

[Horizon] Licensing issue with using JSHint in build
by Aaron Sahlin 10 Sep '14

10 Sep '14

The Horizon build is using JSHint. I am in process of writing JavaScript best practices for Horizon which includes modifying what JSHint Configuration option (rules) are set. Before I consider syncing the Build's JSHint options with the proposed options from the JavaScript best practices (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117595/), I wanted to double check and be sure Horizon got past the legal problem with the good/evil licensing. Background. JSHint was authored by Douglas Crockford, and he added an extra line in the licensing, "The software shall be used for good, not evil". The issue is in the definition of what is good and what is evil. It is too subjective, what is evil differs from person to person therefore ends up being a liability and leaving users open to frivolous lawsuits. Is this licensing something Horizon needs to be concerned with? If so, did Horizon get permission or find some way around the licensing issue? I had posted this question initially to openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org, in which Jeremy Stanley responded with the following which I though was relevant to include. It's worth mentioning that Douglas Crockford seems to consider the free software legal concerns around his license choice amusing and will apparently, upon request, provide an exception to an organization wishing to use his software for evil[1]. He has no interest in changing the situation[2] in JSLint or derivatives (like JSHint) even if that means that they can not be provided as part of Debian[3] or similar legally-concerned distributions. [1]http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions [2]https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/1234 [3]http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal%40lists.debian.org/msg40718.html

4 4