Open Stack

I'll be brief as I can -- on vacation this week so I may not be able to
respond again in a timely way but here's what I know.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana at redhat.com>
> > To: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at justwriteclick.com>
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification Anne.
> >
> > At the moment I do have one question: I actually only see the
> > Apache/CC BY-SA notice on one manual,
> > http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/index.html
> >
> > Is the Apache License 2.0 notice here something that should be ignored
> > for purposes of understanding how that manual is licensed?



The mechanics of why that text appears: the clouddocs-maven-plugin
continues to have that license when the pom.xml file has it set at build
time.

The reason that text hasn't changed: Since we don't have governance in
place that indicates to a contributor that their content is licensed in a
particular way, we have continued to have both licenses on the docs. Until
the tie-in between gerrit and Foundation license agreement is resolved, we
have not had a clear way forward. That bug is logged here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/1311665

The new RST/sphinx web design has only CC-By indicator on each page though,
so we need to get resolution.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Richard, do you have any ideas for next steps for the bug, described as:

Currently, both the documentation (e.g. [1] [2]) and our tools enforce
having to join the Foundation before being allowed to submit a patch to
OpenStack. However from a recent discussion on the legal list [3] it
appears that there is no basis for this:

"ATC is defined to require someone to be an Individual Member, but ATC is
concerned with voting for the Technical Committee, it does not restrict
contributions. Anyone, member or non-member, can submit a contribution if
they have signed the relevant CLA."

It would be awesome if we could make "joining the foundation" optional,
something that people do if they want to. It would remove one barrier to
making contributions, especially in the context of drive-by/volunteer
contributors.


I'm asking
> > about this one because we are planning on producing one item of
> > documentation that will adapt some material from this particular
> > manual. Our usual product documentation license is itself actually CC
> > BY-SA 3.0. It's not a huge issue one way or the other of course.
> >
>


I think our intention is to most closely match Apache 2.0 in the docs
licensing. The board resolution at
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation.
does not have a version number.

We do need a transition plan -- ideally by April 30, when we are planning
to publish with the new web design.

Let me know what I can do to help.
Anne


> > (FWIW our original thought was to use CC BY for our downstream
> > documentation to harmonize it with the upstream documentation; at the
> > time our docs writers were, I think, assuming that the CC BY licensing
> > of OpenStack documentation would be effective by the time we'd be
> > publishing our downstream documentation.)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Richard
>
> Hi all,
>
> It's been brought to my attention that despite the resolution below being
> passed quite some time ago the situation at docs.openstack.org basically
> remains the same as it was when Richard sent the  above with some guides
> using ASL 2.0 and some using CC-BY (and some like the API reference not
> listing any license at all).
>
>



> Is this just an oversight?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:51:45AM -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> > > Thanks for asking Richard. The Board meeting notes with the CC-BY
> decision
> > > are
> > > at:
> > >
> > >
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#
> > > Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation
> > >
> > > Alice King has a draft memo to go to the Board the next time it gets
> on the
> > > Agenda with more details. I can certainly answer questions you have,
> though
> > > I
> > > did delegate this chase to the appropriately named Nick Chase. :)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anne
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >     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.
> > >
> > >
> > >     _______________________________________________
> > >     legal-discuss mailing list
> > >     legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
> > >     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anne Gentle
> > > annegentle at justwriteclick.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openstack-docs mailing list
> > Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
> >
>



-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20150316/e8a38954/attachment.html>