December 2013 - 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

Contribution snag.
by Fox, Kevin M 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Hello OpenStack Legal, I'm trying to contribute something and have run into some snags. See email below. Steve told me that the Foundation is the one needing to receive this. I tried but got no response so I'm forwarding it to the legal list. Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Fox, Kevin M Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:16 PM To: Steve Baker Subject: Heat contribution Hi Steve, I've been looking through the individual contributor level agreement and in section 7 it mentions contacting the project manager, which I think is you for heat? I have a contribution which is for a set of heat templates that make it possible to spawn a scalable, sharded mongodb cluster. It should be of great use to the Trove folks, as well as others. I've been trying to contribute code for a while and the contributor agreement has made this very difficult. Long story short: * I work for a national lab and while the contribution was created by us government funds and owned by the us government, we are operated by a corporation, Battelle and I am technically a Battelle employee. There really isn't an agreement that seems to cover this case other then the individual agreement with a contribution from others. * All parts of the work that aren't derived directly from existing heat-templates has been put in the public domain. * No one at the lab has the legal authority to sign a Corporate contributor level agreement. We can't sign a us government contributor agreement since we are technically not the us government. We are contractors that the government gave the code to under the public domain. Since the code is out there public domain, I believe an individual contributor agreement works via section 7 and I just need to figure out how to get the code to the right person. Is that you? The work history is: It started out as templates from here: https://mongodb-documentation.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ecosystem/tutorial/… "Chris Scheich"<chris(a)mongodb.com> from 10gen verified it was public domain. It was modified a bit here: https://github.com/andresdouglas/aws-cfn-mongostack By "Andres Douglas"<andres.douglas(a)gmail.com> whom I contacted and he also has public domained the work. I personally modified the templates including some code from the openstack/heat-templates repository and added some original code. Changes contributed by me has cleared legal and export controls and is under the public domain. So all licensing is accounted for and should be acceptable to the OpenStack community and being public domain, I should be able to contribute it. The code is located at the following link. It is Submitted on behalf of a third-party: US Government https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/commit/1d4ce302313f210ba5dc2a29f… Thanks, Kevin

11 37

3-clause BSD license, Celery
by Russell Bryant 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

While reviewing an incubation request for a new project, Barbican [1], I see that it would be adding a new dependency, Celery. As noted below, Celery uses the 3-clause BSD license. On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: >> ** Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict how >> the project may be distributed [1] > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/barbican/tree/tools/pip-requires > > It looks like the only item here not in the global requirements is > Celery, which is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license. > > https://github.com/celery/celery/blob/master/LICENSE > > A notable point is this clause: > > * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > I'm not sure if we have other dependencies using this license already. > It's also not clear how to interpret this when Python is always > distributed as source. We can take this up on the legal-discuss mailing > list. My questions: 1) Do we already have dependencies that use this license? Do we have a master list somewhere? 2) How does the documentation clause apply for a Python project? 3) If we don't already have dependencies using this license, what do others thing about accepting it (or not) for OpenStack? [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/020856.html -- Russell Bryant

3 4