Open Stack

Zane,

Comments inline.

On 7/9/15, 1:08 PM, "Zane Bitter" <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:

>On 09/07/15 15:24, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> Thanks that clears it up.  I parse that statement a bit differently you
>> have.  Its the ³so+² or intent of the clause where I get hung up.  The
>>so
>> could be achieved I suspect without the direct requirement of ASL2.0.
>> Technically the technical committee doesn¹t have a TC release anymore
>> either, as far as I understand.  But IANAL :)
>
>That's incorrect, the by-laws require a TC Approved Release and the TC
>has defined one. Previously the equivalent was the integrated release;
>since the by-laws change the TC has adopted a separate tag to clearly
>define what the TC Approved Release is (currently it's the same subset
>of projects that were previously in the integrated release).

Thanks that makes sense - stand corrected :)  Thanks for the information -
this is all very helpful to me personally although I am sure people are
sick of repeating themselves on these points.

>
>> In the Kolla case if we had intended to use #3, we would not be able to
>> apply for big tent by your analysis successfully because we would run
>>into
>> the clause outlined in my original email.
>
>I don't believe that follows. The by-laws require only that anything in
>the TC Approved Release be distributed under the ASL. That said, it is
>completely up to the TC which projects to accept into OpenStack, and it
>would be well within its rights to reject one that e.g. could never be
>added to the Approved Release because of an incompatible license.

Agree

>
>> Since we are not using method
>> #3, but have rolled our own implementation which is ASL, we are good to
>>go
>> on that clause of the new project rules.
>
>Indeed.
>
>cheers,
>Zane.
>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/15, 9:37 AM, "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Just to be clear, the GPLv3 does not require modification for its terms
>>> to apply. The terms of the GPLv3 apply upon distribution of the code.
>>> The GPLv3 licensed code could not be part of the Technical Committee
>>> Approved Release because Section 7.2 of the Restated Bylaws provides
>>> that: "The Foundation shall distribute the software in the Technical
>>> Committee Approved Release under the Apache License 2.0 unless changed
>>>as
>>> provided in Section 9.1" so the requirement of the use of the Apache
>>>2.0
>>> license is not limited to code which is eligible for trademark use.
>>>Such
>>> code, Trademark Designated OpenStack Software, is designated by the
>>>Board
>>> and is a subset of the Technical Committee Approved Release.
>>>
>>> I remember a Board discussion about the use of copyleft licenses in
>>> dependencies and I think that the Board was generally against it, but I
>>> don't think that a decision was reached. I think that a discussion on
>>> this issue would be useful and I will discuss with Jonathan.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfontana at redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:38 PM
>>> To: Stefano Maffulli
>>> Cc: legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] Licensing options for new project (Kolla)
>>> entering big tent
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:14:31PM -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>>>>> I asked the TC if this approach would be in violation of the
>>>>> governance repository here:
>>>>> https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/new-pr
>>>>> ojects-requirements.rst
>>>> [...]
>>>>>   From the requirements " * Project must have no library dependencies
>>>>> which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed or
>>>>> deployed"
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that this requirement line you quote is preventing GPLv3
>>>> code in OpenStack because the GNU GPLv3 (and its predecessor v2)
>>>> doesn't restrict how the code is distributed or deployed. The license
>>>> provisions kick in when code is modified *and* is distributed with
>>>>such
>>>> modifications.
>>>>
>>>> The bullet before the one you quoted says:
>>>>
>>>>   * The proposed project uses an open source license (preferably the
>>>>     Apache v2.0 license, since it is necessary if the project wants
>>>>to be
>>>>     used in an OpenStack trademark program)
>>>>
>>>> This to me means that code can be put under the /openstack/ namespace
>>>> in any open source approved license. Using Apache SL v2 will make it
>>>> possible to be legally distributed by the OpenStack Foundation as part
>>>> of the OpenStack 'core' definition.
>>>>
>>>> If the intention of the TC requirements is to prevent strong copyleft
>>>> licenses in openstack/ namespace maybe the bullets needs to be
>>>> clarified.
>>>
>>> I agree. If "effectively restrict[s] how the project may be distributed
>>> or deployed" was meant to allude to things like GPLv3 that is not
>>>obvious.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> legal-discuss mailing list
>>> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>>
>>> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or
>>> legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended
>>> recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended
>>>recipient,
>>> you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure,
>>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any
>>>of
>>> its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>> communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all
>>>copies
>>> of the message. To contact us directly, send to
>>>postmaster at dlapiper.com.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> legal-discuss mailing list
>>> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-discuss mailing list
>> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-discuss mailing list
>legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss