From mail at clusums.eu Mon Aug 13 12:57:57 2018 From: mail at clusums.eu (mail at clusums.eu) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:57:57 +0300 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> Message-ID: Hi, DMTF is looking at CC BY. Is that OK? It allows commercial use. When I'm looking at OSI approved licenses[1], CC does not come up. Is there a reason why? And about the file inclusion - FYI, in current version users will have to download the files themselves and configure sushy to the location where they are downloaded. This is not very user-friendly, and in future we might look at improving this somehow given that we also cannot always rely on users having access to the Internet during installation to download the files automatically. But for now this is how it will work. Regards, Aija [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical On 07/30/2018 06:25 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > Well, documents are copyrighted just like code, so DMTF would need to > say what license they're releasing the documents under. Creative Commons > licenses are popular for documents and data. Some Creative Commons > licenses are compatible with Apache 2.0 (make sure it isn't one of the > "Non-Commercial" variants). > > You're still better off having users download the DMTF files separately. > And, no matter how the users get the files, DMTF needs to release the > files under some form of open content or open data license, so the users > have permission to use the files. > > Allison From allison at lohutok.net Mon Aug 13 14:01:16 2018 From: allison at lohutok.net (Allison Randal) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:01:16 +0200 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> Message-ID: Hi Aija, Take a look at the Apache Software Foundation's notes on compatibility for CC BY: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b The short version is that they consider CC BY compatible for including in Apache 2.0 licensed codebases, but view it as different enough to be worth some caution, and specifically: - they only include CC BY code in binary form (which doesn't make any sense here, since there is no binary form for the DMTF data files) - they provide a prominent notice of the different licensing for any files under CC BY What this means for you is that your current method of having the users download and install the files manually is totally fine with a CC BY license, it grants all the permissions the users need. You could also set up some tools to automatically download and install the files as part of the sushy installation process, as we talked about earlier in this email thread, and that would be totally fine with a CC BY license. Committing the DMTF files to a sushy git repository is more complicated, and while it may be fine, it's more of a legal gray area, so Mark Radcliffe would need to review and determine whether OpenStack Foundation can do that, and if so what additional notices or limitations should be applied to those files (similar to how the Apache Software Foundation requires the prominent notice, etc). The reason no CC licenses appear on the OSI approved list is that the OSI only reviews open source software licenses, and the CC licenses aren't for software, they're for content (like images, text, data, etc). Some CC licenses are compatible with some OSI approved software licenses. Allison On 08/13/2018 02:57 PM, mail at clusums.eu wrote: > Hi, > > DMTF is looking at CC BY. Is that OK? It allows commercial use. > > When I'm looking at OSI approved licenses[1], CC does not come up. Is > there a reason why? > > And about the file inclusion - FYI, in current version users will have > to download the files themselves and configure sushy to the location > where they are downloaded. This is not very user-friendly, and in future > we might look at improving this somehow given that we also cannot always > rely on users having access to the Internet during installation to > download the files automatically. But for now this is how it will work. > > Regards, > > Aija > > [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > > On 07/30/2018 06:25 PM, Allison Randal wrote: >> Well, documents are copyrighted just like code, so DMTF would need to >> say what license they're releasing the documents under. Creative Commons >> licenses are popular for documents and data. Some Creative Commons >> licenses are compatible with Apache 2.0 (make sure it isn't one of the >> "Non-Commercial" variants). >> >> You're still better off having users download the DMTF files separately. >> And, no matter how the users get the files, DMTF needs to release the >> files under some form of open content or open data license, so the users >> have permission to use the files. >> >> Allison > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-discuss mailing list > legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss From mail at clusums.eu Mon Aug 13 14:19:26 2018 From: mail at clusums.eu (mail at clusums.eu) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:19:26 +0300 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> Message-ID: <99c8e985-7f46-f008-3ee2-8d954e51aee2@clusums.eu> ok, thank you. For now will go with CC BY. If it is decided to include the files in sushy repository this will be revisited, but at the moment there is no plan to include those files in sushy repo. Regards, Aija On 08/13/2018 05:01 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > Hi Aija, > > Take a look at the Apache Software Foundation's notes on compatibility > for CC BY: > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > > The short version is that they consider CC BY compatible for including > in Apache 2.0 licensed codebases, but view it as different enough to be > worth some caution, and specifically: > > - they only include CC BY code in binary form (which doesn't make any > sense here, since there is no binary form for the DMTF data files) > - they provide a prominent notice of the different licensing for any > files under CC BY > > What this means for you is that your current method of having the users > download and install the files manually is totally fine with a CC BY > license, it grants all the permissions the users need. You could also > set up some tools to automatically download and install the files as > part of the sushy installation process, as we talked about earlier in > this email thread, and that would be totally fine with a CC BY license. > Committing the DMTF files to a sushy git repository is more complicated, > and while it may be fine, it's more of a legal gray area, so Mark > Radcliffe would need to review and determine whether OpenStack > Foundation can do that, and if so what additional notices or limitations > should be applied to those files (similar to how the Apache Software > Foundation requires the prominent notice, etc). > > > The reason no CC licenses appear on the OSI approved list is that the > OSI only reviews open source software licenses, and the CC licenses > aren't for software, they're for content (like images, text, data, etc). > Some CC licenses are compatible with some OSI approved software licenses. > > Allison > > On 08/13/2018 02:57 PM, mail at clusums.eu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> DMTF is looking at CC BY. Is that OK? It allows commercial use. >> >> When I'm looking at OSI approved licenses[1], CC does not come up. Is >> there a reason why? >> >> And about the file inclusion - FYI, in current version users will have >> to download the files themselves and configure sushy to the location >> where they are downloaded. This is not very user-friendly, and in future >> we might look at improving this somehow given that we also cannot always >> rely on users having access to the Internet during installation to >> download the files automatically. But for now this is how it will work. >> >> Regards, >> >> Aija >> >> [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical >> >> On 07/30/2018 06:25 PM, Allison Randal wrote: >>> Well, documents are copyrighted just like code, so DMTF would need to >>> say what license they're releasing the documents under. Creative Commons >>> licenses are popular for documents and data. Some Creative Commons >>> licenses are compatible with Apache 2.0 (make sure it isn't one of the >>> "Non-Commercial" variants). >>> >>> You're still better off having users download the DMTF files separately. >>> And, no matter how the users get the files, DMTF needs to release the >>> files under some form of open content or open data license, so the users >>> have permission to use the files. >>> >>> Allison >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-discuss mailing list >> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss From mail at clusums.eu Mon Aug 13 18:23:53 2018 From: mail at clusums.eu (mail at clusums.eu) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 21:23:53 +0300 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> Message-ID: <007d51b8-997a-8017-e352-b4ffa456ec4f@clusums.eu> DMTF came back and they were expecting that CC BY would be sufficient for including files in sushy repo. While at the moment we don't plan to include the files, what would be necessary to determine if in future CC BY would allow to include the files in sushy repo? Regards, Aija On 08/13/2018 05:01 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > Committing the DMTF files to a sushy git repository is more complicated, > and while it may be fine, it's more of a legal gray area, so Mark > Radcliffe would need to review and determine whether OpenStack > Foundation can do that, and if so what additional notices or limitations > should be applied to those files (similar to how the Apache Software > Foundation requires the prominent notice, etc). > > From fungi at yuggoth.org Mon Aug 13 19:24:35 2018 From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 19:24:35 +0000 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: <007d51b8-997a-8017-e352-b4ffa456ec4f@clusums.eu> References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> <007d51b8-997a-8017-e352-b4ffa456ec4f@clusums.eu> Message-ID: <20180813192435.5hscm6gv3aeofwk2@yuggoth.org> On 2018-08-13 21:23:53 +0300 (+0300), mail at clusums.eu wrote: > DMTF came back and they were expecting that CC BY would be > sufficient for including files in sushy repo. While at the moment > we don't plan to include the files, what would be necessary to > determine if in future CC BY would allow to include the files in > sushy repo? [...] Because sushy is an official OpenStack Ironic deliverable, the OpenStack Technical Committee considers matters like this on a case-by-case basis with the help of the OpenStack Foundation legal counsel as mentioned in the last sentence here: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html Though in the case of CC-BY3 we already have some precedent for including documentation source under this license in repositories which are primarily ASL2, for example in the oslo.messaging repository you can find some: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.messaging/tree/doc/source/contributor/supported-messaging-drivers.rst?id=818fd68 Note that at their October 15, 2012 meeting the OpenStack Foundation Board of Directors resolved that the Creative Commons CC-BY license was approved for documentation and similar site content: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation. As such the vast majority of our documentation repositories are already blanket CC-BY3 (with the exception of inline software source code examples and associated build tooling) as are bits of documentation in software source code repositories (e.g. oslo.messaging), so hopefully it wouldn't need a significant amount of deliberation to treat embedded data copies in a similar fashion. -- Jeremy Stanley -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 963 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mail at clusums.eu Wed Aug 15 16:52:59 2018 From: mail at clusums.eu (mail at clusums.eu) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:52:59 +0300 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: <20180813192435.5hscm6gv3aeofwk2@yuggoth.org> References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> <007d51b8-997a-8017-e352-b4ffa456ec4f@clusums.eu> <20180813192435.5hscm6gv3aeofwk2@yuggoth.org> Message-ID: Hi, thank you for clarifications. I talked with other developers in Ironic project if sushy really needs these files to be included in the repo and they say that many operators use or test Ironic where there is no Internet access. Thus eventually it would be more user-friendly to include the files in the repo rather than downloading them manually or automatically. Can the tech committee review this case to include JSON files from [1] in sushy repository given that they will have CC BY applied or is there any other way to proceed to review this? Regards, Aija [1] https://redfish.dmtf.org/schemas/registries/ On 08/13/2018 10:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > Because sushy is an official OpenStack Ironic deliverable, the > OpenStack Technical Committee considers matters like this on a > case-by-case basis with the help of the OpenStack Foundation legal > counsel as mentioned in the last sentence here: > > From doug at doughellmann.com Wed Aug 15 19:05:29 2018 From: doug at doughellmann.com (Doug Hellmann) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:05:29 -0400 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: <20180813192435.5hscm6gv3aeofwk2@yuggoth.org> References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> <007d51b8-997a-8017-e352-b4ffa456ec4f@clusums.eu> <20180813192435.5hscm6gv3aeofwk2@yuggoth.org> Message-ID: <1534359614-sup-1932@lrrr.local> Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-08-13 19:24:35 +0000: > On 2018-08-13 21:23:53 +0300 (+0300), mail at clusums.eu wrote: > > DMTF came back and they were expecting that CC BY would be > > sufficient for including files in sushy repo. While at the moment > > we don't plan to include the files, what would be necessary to > > determine if in future CC BY would allow to include the files in > > sushy repo? > [...] > > Because sushy is an official OpenStack Ironic deliverable, the > OpenStack Technical Committee considers matters like this on a > case-by-case basis with the help of the OpenStack Foundation legal > counsel as mentioned in the last sentence here: > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html > > Though in the case of CC-BY3 we already have some precedent for > including documentation source under this license in repositories > which are primarily ASL2, for example in the oslo.messaging > repository you can find some: > > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.messaging/tree/doc/source/contributor/supported-messaging-drivers.rst?id=818fd68 > > Note that at their October 15, 2012 meeting the OpenStack Foundation > Board of Directors resolved that the Creative Commons CC-BY license > was approved for documentation and similar site content: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation. > > As such the vast majority of our documentation repositories are > already blanket CC-BY3 (with the exception of inline software source > code examples and associated build tooling) as are bits of > documentation in software source code repositories (e.g. > oslo.messaging), so hopefully it wouldn't need a significant amount > of deliberation to treat embedded data copies in a similar fashion. Given that we're talking about data, not code, that the Redfish folks seem to want to allow this sort of use, that we have several precedents, and that (as Allison points out) the Apache foundation considers CC-BY compatible as long as there is "prominent notice of the different licensing for any files under CC BY" I don't really see a problem. Does anyone think there is any reason not to let the Sushy team go ahead and include the file, as planned? Doug From doug at doughellmann.com Thu Aug 16 15:32:08 2018 From: doug at doughellmann.com (Doug Hellmann) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 11:32:08 -0400 Subject: [legal-discuss] Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project In-Reply-To: <1534359614-sup-1932@lrrr.local> References: <175a2b19-732f-2bcf-9801-d566005afece@lohutok.net> <5418f651-6c0b-0c93-8a61-234b812e08fe@clusums.eu> <7cd0b720-09a2-f49c-a404-09d10c36bf3f@lohutok.net> <15d4bf68-b3cb-5128-c507-e352a991cd62@clusums.eu> <2591b21e-6c2f-166a-35a4-13708370c9c6@lohutok.net> <007d51b8-997a-8017-e352-b4ffa456ec4f@clusums.eu> <20180813192435.5hscm6gv3aeofwk2@yuggoth.org> <1534359614-sup-1932@lrrr.local> Message-ID: <1534433388-sup-7555@lrrr.local> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-08-15 15:05:29 -0400: > Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-08-13 19:24:35 +0000: > > On 2018-08-13 21:23:53 +0300 (+0300), mail at clusums.eu wrote: > > > DMTF came back and they were expecting that CC BY would be > > > sufficient for including files in sushy repo. While at the moment > > > we don't plan to include the files, what would be necessary to > > > determine if in future CC BY would allow to include the files in > > > sushy repo? > > [...] > > > > Because sushy is an official OpenStack Ironic deliverable, the > > OpenStack Technical Committee considers matters like this on a > > case-by-case basis with the help of the OpenStack Foundation legal > > counsel as mentioned in the last sentence here: > > > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html > > > > Though in the case of CC-BY3 we already have some precedent for > > including documentation source under this license in repositories > > which are primarily ASL2, for example in the oslo.messaging > > repository you can find some: > > > > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.messaging/tree/doc/source/contributor/supported-messaging-drivers.rst?id=818fd68 > > > > Note that at their October 15, 2012 meeting the OpenStack Foundation > > Board of Directors resolved that the Creative Commons CC-BY license > > was approved for documentation and similar site content: > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation. > > > > As such the vast majority of our documentation repositories are > > already blanket CC-BY3 (with the exception of inline software source > > code examples and associated build tooling) as are bits of > > documentation in software source code repositories (e.g. > > oslo.messaging), so hopefully it wouldn't need a significant amount > > of deliberation to treat embedded data copies in a similar fashion. > > Given that we're talking about data, not code, that the Redfish > folks seem to want to allow this sort of use, that we have several > precedents, and that (as Allison points out) the Apache foundation > considers CC-BY compatible as long as there is "prominent notice > of the different licensing for any files under CC BY" I don't really > see a problem. > > Does anyone think there is any reason not to let the Sushy team go ahead > and include the file, as planned? > > Doug We discussed this during today's TC office hours [1], and given that we have many reasons why this looks OK and no clear indication from anyone that it is not, we told the Sushy team to proceed and include the file. We suggested updating the LICENSE file and adding a release note as a minimum way to conform with the BY clause in the license for the data file. Doug [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-08-16.log.html From fungi at yuggoth.org Tue Aug 28 17:03:28 2018 From: fungi at yuggoth.org (Jeremy Stanley) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:03:28 +0000 Subject: [legal-discuss] On the problem of OSF copyright headers Message-ID: <20180828170327.qwyi5c6svus3h523@yuggoth.org> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 963 bytes Desc: not available URL: