- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

CoC translation to Spanish
by Alvaro Soto 07 Mar '24

07 Mar '24

Hi all, As part of being a more inclusive community, I started a translation process on the CoC using our GitHub repository[1], and with the LATAM community, we are managing to finish it[2]. However, we would like to get the approval so this can be official. From Allison's comments, I understand that the foundation doesn't have any Spanish-fluent employees. So, my question is: - How can we get this translation validated? - What will you need from us to do, so we can get this translation as official? 1- https://github.com/opensource-latinamerica/openinframx/issues/5 2- https://github.com/opensource-latinamerica/openinframx/blob/5-post-add-open… Cheers! -- Alvaro Soto *Note: My work hours may not be your work hours. Please do not feel the need to respond during a time that is not convenient for you.* ---------------------------------------------------------- Great people talk about ideas, ordinary people talk about things, small people talk... about other people.

1 0

Outreachy applicant Harshita Verma
by 174_Harshita verma 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

To post to this mailing list. harshita174btcse21(a)igdtuw.ac.in

1 0

GPLv3 and Apache2 licences for Openstack repos
by Sergey Sh 09 Dec '19

09 Dec '19

Hi, all I wonder if I can get help here or suggestions for licenses question. We move Ansible modules from upstream Ansible repository to Openstack namespace. In parallel, we need to develop new modules and modules that will replace those moved from Ansible. Moved original modules won't change. The problem is that Ansible and its modules have GPLv3 license and repositories of Openstack have Apache2. There are about 150+ people committed to Ansible modules for years, so it's hardly possible to get approval for relicensing from everyone. How can we handle this situation without violating licenses and agreements? As I see it's 3 options 1. Move GPL modules to SIG repo in Openstack, freeze them there, and create a new Openstack repo with Apache2 license and develop the new modules in it. Won't it be a problem if new modules will have the same functionality as GPL ones? 2. Move GPL modules to SIG repo in Openstack, to develop new modules in GPL there. 3. Move GPL modules to SIG repo in Openstack, to develop new modules in Apache2 there. I think because of partial incompatibility of Apache2 <-> GPLv3 licenses option 3 is barely viable [1] Option 2 is less preferred because it puts module aside from all Openstack projects that have Apache2 license. What are the potential issues of option 1? I'd appreciate any ideas or opinions about the topic. Thanks [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html *Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF's licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' interpretation of copyright law.* -- Best regards Sagi Shnaidman

3 2

Seeking approval for inclusion of Scapy in global-requirements
by Nate Johnston 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

OpenStack legal-discuss, Hello, my name is Nate Johnston and I work primarily on OpenStack neutron. I am currently working on a new feature to permit or restrict traffic based on ethertype. This is a change that has security implications, because it allows us to restrict certain types of network traffic that we have ignored until now - specifically ethertypes other than IPv4, IPv6 and ARP within an L2 broadcast domain. In order to properly test this functionality I needed to create packets with custom ethertypes and test their arrival or non-arrival. The best tool for this is the 'scapy' library, which is licensed GPL v2. This would be a testing-only usage, and would not be used at runtime, so per the Licensing Requirements page I am seeking approval from you. The requirements change where I have requested this is [1]; the homepage for the Scapy project is [2]. Thanks, Nate Johnston [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/671776/ [2] https://scapy.net/

2 1

Fwd: [OpenStack Foundation] OSF Product Classification Matrix
by Fred Li 21 May '19

21 May '19

Hope legal discussion team can help on this topic. Thanks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mohammed Naser <mnaser(a)vexxhost.com> Date: Tue, May 21, 2019 at 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OSF Product Classification Matrix To: Fred Li <yongle.li(a)gmail.com> Cc: <foundation(a)lists.openstack.org>, <foundation-board(a)lists.openstack.org> On Tue, May 21, 2019, 7:20 PM Fred Li <yongle.li(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I am wondering whether projects under OpenStack Foundation follows US > Export Regulations[1] or not. I tried check OpenStack legal > documents[2], but didn't find anything about this topic. > As an example, ASF listed the ECCN (Export Control Classification > Number) for its software [3]. I don't know where I can find OpenStack > projects' ECCN. First off -- I'm sorry that this is even something you have to deal with right now. We should focus on ensuring that we maintain our four opens. http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss I suggest perhaps forwarding your email to the mailing list above. > Hope you can help to point the information. > > [1] http://www.bis.doc.gov/ > [2] https://www.openstack.org/legal/ > [3] https://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ > > -- > Regards > Fred Li (李永乐) > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation mailing list > Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation -- Regards Fred Li (李永乐)

1 1

Re: [legal-discuss] [tc] OpenStack code and GPL libraries
by Jeremy Stanley 04 Feb '19

04 Feb '19

On 2019-02-04 14:42:04 +0100 (+0100), Ilya Shakhat wrote: > I am experimenting with automatic verification of code licenses of > OpenStack projects and see that one of Rally dependencies has GPL3 > license [...] To start off, it looks like the license for morph is already known to the Rally developers, based on the inline comment for it at https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/rally/tree/requirements.txt?id=362… (so hopefully this is no real surprise). The source of truth for our licensing policies, as far as projects governed by the OpenStack Technical Committee are concerned (which openstack/rally is), can be found here: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html It has a carve out for "tools that are run with or on OpenStack projects only during validation or testing phases of development" which "may be licensed under any OSI-approved license" and since the README.rst for Rally states it's a "tool & framework that allows one to write simple plugins and combine them in complex tests scenarios that allows to perform all kinds of testing" it probably meets those criteria. As for concern that a Python application which imports another Python library at runtime inherits its license and so becomes derivative of that work, that has been the subject of much speculation. In particular, whether a Python import counts as "dynamic linking" in GPL 3.0 section 1 is debatable: https://bytes.com/topic/python/answers/41019-python-gpl https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1487/how-does-the-gpls-linki… https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/87446/using-a-gplv3… https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40492518/is-an-import-in-python-conside… I'm most definitely not a lawyer, but from what I've been able to piece together it's the combination of rally+morph which potentially becomes GPLv3-licensed when distributed, not the openstack/rally source code itself. This is really more of a topic for the legal-discuss mailing list, however, so I am cross-posting my reply there for completeness. To readers only of the legal-discuss ML, the original post can be found archived here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002356… -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

On the problem of OSF copyright headers
by Jeremy Stanley 28 Aug '18

28 Aug '18

Just a heads up, the perennial topic of copyright assignment misconceptions has reared its head again. I've posted http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-August/133929.html on the openstack-dev mailing list proposing that we should have somewhere more formal than a wiki article to put the summary for that. -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project
by mail＠clusums.eu 16 Aug '18

16 Aug '18

Hi, I'm working on sushy project[1] and I want to know if I can include some third-party files in the project and distribute the project together with these files. The files in question are JSON files here [2], for example, [3]. They do not have any license specified, but they have "Copyright 2014-2015, 2017 Distributed Management Task Force, Inc. (DMTF). All rights reserved.". This corresponds to full copyright notice at [4]. The questions: 1) Can I include these files in sushy project as they are? 2) If not, can I process these files automatically using a script and derive some code from these files and include the derived code in sushy project? 3) If not, can I process these files manually and type some code and include the derived code? 4) Is there something else? Regards, Aija [1] https://docs.openstack.org/sushy/latest/ [2] http://redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/registries/ [3] http://redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/registries/Base.1.2.0.json [4] https://www.dmtf.org/about/policies/copyright

5 19

Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] TC Report 18-05
by Graham Hayes 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

On 30/01/18 18:34, Chris Dent wrote: <snip/> > > ## Today's Board Meeting > > I attended [today's Board > Meeting](https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/30Jan2018Boa… > > but it seems that according to the [transparency > policy](http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/) I can't > comment: > >> No commenting on Board meeting contents and decisions until >> Executive Director publishes a meeting summary > > That doesn't sound like transparency to me, but I assume there must be > reasons. I was under the assumption that this only applied to board members, but I am open to correction. Can someone on legal-discuss clarify? > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >

2 2

[tc][qa] possible license violation in os-faults project
by Pavlo Shchelokovskyy 23 Nov '17

23 Nov '17

Hi all, today I came about what I see as a possible violation of GPLv3 license in openstack/os-faults project. As all other openstack/* projects, openstack/os-faults and all of its code is licensed under Apache v2 license. But the code in os_faults/ansible/executor.py module explicitly imports multiple modules [0] from Ansible, which in turn are licensed under GPLv3 license (example of the first imported module [1]). IANAL, but as far as I understand Apache v2 and GPLv3 licenses are incompatible in this regard. I'd like to be proven wrong, but it seems this code in os-faults must be removed, and if needed rewritten to call out to "ansible" or "ansible-playbook" CLI scripts (and parsing their stdout) instead. [0] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-faults/tree/os_faults/ansible/ex… [1] https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/v2.4.1.0-1/lib/ansible/executor/tas… Best regards, -- Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com

3 2