- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

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 30 Jan '18

30 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

[tc][kolla] Distribute Ansible module with Kolla
by duonghq＠vn.fujitsu.com 01 Aug '17

01 Aug '17

Hello everyone, I'm looking for legal advice about distribute Ansible module within Kolla. In order to implement one feature in Kolla, I need developing one Ansible strategy plugin, which in turn need to include and inherit from a couple of modules of Ansible. Kolla does not use the plugin directly, Kolla will invoke Ansible (through popen) and Ansible uses this plugin. The question is, can I distribute this plugin along with Kolla-Ansible deliverable? Thanks, Ha Quang Duong (Mr.) IRC duonghq PODC - Fujitsu Vietnam Ltd.

3 2

License issue & Need help
by HoangCX＠vn.fujitsu.com 26 Jul '17

26 Jul '17

Hi, We are recently trying to propose a Netlink solution [1] in order to improve performance for Neutron's Security Group. Almost the thing is ready to go except for license issue as we are not so familiar with this area. The problem is come from some parts of code we used that based on MIT license (not Apache 2 license). So need to get help for the following points: 1. Can we mix MIT license and Apache 2 license in a same file like [2]? 2. We have LICENSE file at the top directory. Is it okay to have a file with some different license under the tree and publish it as part of neutron distribution? Any feedback and help are really appreciated. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/470911/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/470911/20/neutron/privileged/agent/linux/n… Thanks, Hoang

2 1

Hosting a non-official GPLv3 OpenStack project
by David Moreau Simard 25 Jul '17

25 Jul '17

Hi, I'm the author of ARA [1] which is not an official OpenStack project: - It is not governed by the OpenStack foundation or the technical committee - It does not require the OpenStack CLA/ICLA for contributions - It is not a deliverable of any OpenStack project For me, ARA falls in the same category of software that was created by the OpenStack community as Jenkins Job Builder [2] and git-review [3]. >From the licensing requirements documentation [4]: > Projects run as part of the OpenStack Infrastructure (in order to produce OpenStack software) may be licensed under any OSI-approved license. > This includes tools that are run with or on OpenStack projects only during validation or testing phases of development (e.g., a source code linter). It would likely fit in what was previously known as "stackforge". While ARA is currently labelled with an Apache 2.0 license, some components of it are coupled to Ansible which is GPLv3. For the purpose of simplicity and avoid headaches around dual licensing (worry about what we are importing where, etc.), I am currently considering re-licensing ARA as GPLv3. Doing this re-licensing now rather than later is desirable before ARA gets too many contributors from different companies which may complicate a re-licensing. My question is the following: Would this re-licensing mean that ARA could no longer be hosted by the OpenStack community infrastructure ? What are other ramifications I might be missing ? Thanks, [1]: https://gihtub.com/openstack/ara [2]: https://github.com/openstack-infra/jenkins-job-builder [3]: https://github.com/openstack-infra/git-review [4]: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html David Moreau Simard Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]

3 2

GPLv2 dependency in puppet-neutron?
by ZZelle 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Hi everyone, While working on puppet-neutron, i discovered that puppet-neutron depends on the sysctl puppet module[1] which is GPLv2 (be careful to not confuse it with another sysctl module[2] which is apache2). This dependency has been added a long time ago (in juno or before). It seems we have a license issue (ie: apache2 code depends on GPLv2 code)? [1] https://github.com/duritong/puppet-sysctl [2] https://github.com/thias/puppet-sysctl Cédric/ZZelle@IRC

2 1

[collectd-ceilometer-plugin][legal] Request to relicense collectd-ceilometer-plugin under MIT license.
by Foley, Emma L 09 Feb '17

09 Feb '17

Hi all, We have had a request from the OPNFV community to relicense the collectd-ceilometer-plugin [1] to prevent potential license conflicts. OPNFV [2] produces a set of ISOs which will include collectd [3] and collectd-ceilometer-plugin. Some collectd components are GPL v2 licensed, which would cause a conflict at the point of distribution, if both the GPL plugins and the collectd-ceilometer-plugin were enabled by default. The proposed solution is to change the license of collectd-ceilometer-plugin from Apache V2 to MIT. As far as I can see, this is appropriate and will maintain compatibility As a consequence of this change, all contributors need to agree to the change. I'm currently planning to propose a patch to change the license, and asking all the previous contributors to add a "signed-off-by" line to the commit message to show they consent to the change. Are there any issues with the proposed license change? Is the proposed method of getting consent suitable? Best regards, Emma [1] http://github.com/openstack/collectd-ceilometer-plugin.git [2] https://www.opnfv.org/ [3] https://collectd.org/ https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html -------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Research and Development Ireland Limited Registered in Ireland Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare Registered Number: 308263

2 1

openstack CLA usage
by John Dickinson 31 Jan '17

31 Jan '17

Can the OpenStack CLA (https://review.openstack.org/static/cla.html) be used as a template for other projects (non-OpenStack)? Is there a "license" of the CLA itself? --John

2 1

Re: [legal-discuss] [kolla]is it OK to modify python code in OpenStack project?
by Jeffrey Zhang 03 Jan '17

03 Jan '17

Thanks all guys. Copy python code is really a bad idea. Now i have moved to re-use oslo.config iniparser[0][1], which works too. So we have no license issue, now. ;) [0] https://github.com/openstack/oslo.config/blob/master/oslo_config/iniparser.… [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/412101/5/ansible/action_plugins/merge_conf… On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Van Lindberg <van.lindberg(a)rackspace.com> wrote: > Thierry is correct in his analysis. > > > If you really want to copy it - which I don't suggest - then copy it over > into your repo, rename both the module and the class, and make your code > use your derived work. > > > Put a header at the top that says something like "Based on Python's > ConfigParser.py. Original ConfigParser.py distributed under the Python > Software Foundation license. Additions and changes copyright [YOU] and > distributed under the Apache Software License, v2." > > > Do not modify the stdlib in-place (as it sounds like you are doing) - but > perhaps I just misunderstand. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Thierry Carrez <thierry(a)openstack.org> > *Sent:* Monday, January 2, 2017 4:45 AM > *To:* legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org > *Subject:* Re: [legal-discuss] [kolla]is it OK to modify python code in > OpenStack project? > > Jeffrey Zhang wrote: > > Recently, Kolla project has requirement to modify[1] the python's > > ConfigParser.py code[0]. > > > > Python is using PSF license[3], which is GPL compatible. But OpenStack > > is using Apache License. > > > > Here is the diff view[2]. > > > > I want to make sure: is it OK to re-license ConfigParser.py? If not, what > > the solution? > > > > [0] https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/2.7/Lib/ConfigParser.py > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/412101 > > [2] https://gist.github.com/jeffrey4l/2258b276cbd038e73797cfa0952da3 > 71/revisions?diff=split > > [3] https://docs.python.org/3/license.html > > I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds slightly tricky. > > The PSF license is Apache-compatible, which means that you can combine > PSF-licensed and Apache-licensed code (if you retain the original > licenses). But OpenStack code must be licensed under a license supported > by the Contributor License Agreement (CLA) which allows redistribution > by the OpenStack Foundation under ASLv2 (currently only ASLv2, the MIT > and both forms of the BSD license meet this requirement). > > So I don't think we can really bundle PSF-licensed code within OpenStack > code, and I think too much was copied from the original class so that > anyone can pretend it is original work. > > Three solutions that should work around the problem without requiring > lawyers to further investigate the issue: > > 1/ Do a clean room implementation (by someone not familiar with the > original code) > > 2/ Rewrite your code so that it takes a pure ConfigParser class output > and transforms it into what you need, rather than copying code over > > 3/ Publish your modified ConfigParser into its own 3rd-party PyPI > library (licensed under the PSF license) > > Of those, (2) is the one that introduces the less technical debt (no > code copy). > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > legal-discuss mailing list > legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > legal-discuss mailing list > legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss > > -- Regards, Jeffrey Zhang Blog: http://xcodest.me

1 0