- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Does Openstack provide same legal coverage for projects in Stackforge ?
by Alan Kavanagh 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Hi I previously posted an email http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-December/000328.html asking for clarification on the legalities for projects referenced by Openstack and intending to eventually be integrated into main Openstack branch as Openstack Core Projects, but that currently reside in Stackforge. What legal, license, patent troll protection, TM etc would be covered by Openstack for projects in Stackforge? Can someone from the Openstack Legal Team/Openstack Foundation please clarify this? BR Alan

2 1

Legal-discuss
by Alan Kavanagh 22 Dec '14

22 Dec '14

Hi Openstack Can you please advise what the legalities and copyrights, and Openstack Trademarks etc are for projects that live in Stackforge and what Openstack covers for such projects. This question arises due to question I have posted in response to: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96149/ /Alan

1 0

How should I use pylint (GPL)?
by Angus Lees 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

[I'm not subscribed to legal-discuss so I'd appreciate being CCed - or I'll just read it via the archives] Context: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120320/ pylint is a tool for static analysis of python. It is implemented in python and is GPL (and relies heavily on the 'astroid' library which is also GPL). pylint is/has been widely used by various OpenStack projects by exec'ing it as a simple black-box tool. pylint is only used (in any form) during development and not in a production deployment. In the above change, I have written a custom pylint check and I'd like to write more. Writing a custom pylint check involves importing the pylint/astroid python libraries and calling lots of pylint/astroid python functions. Mark McClain raised the (quite reasonable) concern that this change was importing a GPL'd python library and perhaps couldn't be allowed. I want the freedom to be able to make these new checks completely neutron-specific (or ditto for any other project), so I'd like the code for the checks to be close to the neutron code it is checking and "owned" by the broader neutron development community just like other forms of automated testing. So my key question is: How far does the pylint-importing code need to be before becoming acceptable? I figure my options are roughly: A. Yes, the change above is fine as written, go for it. Importing is most-likely not "deriving" in the GPL-sense and everyone needs to make their own legal assessments at the time they install/redistribute code anyway. B. The above change is fine, go for it. Continue to ensure that any production deployment doesn't require pylint to be installed so this issue never comes up during deployment. C. In the same git repo is fine, but we license these files under GPL and ensure we don't import them from other neutron code. Move the files to their own top-level subdir in the neutron git repo with a big README explanation/warning. ... Z. Move the pylint checks out to a separate git repo on stackforge-or-similar, "release" the checks via pypi, install it in the neutron 'pylint' tox environment, and use it from neutron only through an exec boundary. In the #openstack-neutron IRC discussion regarding this, I fear there's quite a bit of confusion/misunderstanding about copyright and which acts trigger the GPL obligations (and on whom). It would be great to get some authoritative advice here - and perhaps flesh out that FIXME in the legal issues FAQ ;) Thanks! - Gus

1 0

CFP: FOSDEM 2015 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom
by Richard Fontana 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Hi, The CFP for the FOSDEM 2015 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom is now out: https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2014-October/002036.html and I thought I'd post the link to this list. I believe this list has a mix of lawyers and technical OpenStack contributors and users. I particularly encourage talk proposals from people in the OpenStack technical community even though they might not have thought of giving a 'legal' or 'policy' (in the sense meant here) talk before. I am biased by my interest in OpenStack but in my opinion some of the most interesting legal-policy issues in open source community development are happening in OpenStack and I happen to think that we don't get enough of the technical-community viewpoint when such things are discussed. Richard

1 0

[Horizon] Licensing issue with using JSHint in build
by Aaron Sahlin 10 Sep '14

10 Sep '14

The Horizon build is using JSHint. I am in process of writing JavaScript best practices for Horizon which includes modifying what JSHint Configuration option (rules) are set. Before I consider syncing the Build's JSHint options with the proposed options from the JavaScript best practices (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117595/) I wanted to double check and be sure Horizon got past the legal problem with the good/evil licensing. Background. JSHint was authored by Douglas Crockford, and he added an extra line in the licensing, "The software shall be used for good, not evil". The issue is in the definition of what is good and what is evil. It is too subjective, what is evil differs from person to person therefore ends up being a liability and leaving users open to frivolous lawsuits. Is this licensing something Horizon needs to be concerned with? If so, did Horizon get permission or find some way around the licensing issue? I had posted this question initially to openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org, in which Jeremy Stanley responded with the following which I though was relevant to include. It's worth mentioning that Douglas Crockford seems to consider the free software legal concerns around his license choice amusing and will apparently, upon request, provide an exception to an organization wishing to use his software for evil[1]. He has no interest in changing the situation[2] in JSLint or derivatives (like JSHint) even if that means that they can not be provided as part of Debian[3] or similar legally-concerned distributions. [1]http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions [2]https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/1234 [3]http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal%40lists.debian.org/msg40718.html

4 4

Invitation to working group on FLOSS entities
by Radcliffe, Mark 20 Jul '14

20 Jul '14

If you are interested in attending, you can attend in person at: Mozilla Portland Office Brewery Block 2 1120 NW Couch St Suite 320 Portland, OR 97209 Or you can attend by phone at the Mozilla conference line. There are several options for different US and international numbers and VOIP, full details are here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Teleconferencing The local option is: US/Oregon/Portland: +1 971 544 8000, extension 92 Once you've dialed in (through any number), the conference number is 271. 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(a)dlapiper.com. Thank you.

1 1

Fwd: need some advise on publicizing a translated version of openstack document.
by Anne Gentle 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Hi legal discussioners, Can you comment on this question? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jaesuk Ahn <bluejay.ahn(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:45 PM Subject: need some advise on publicizing a translated version of openstack document. To: Anne Gentle <anne(a)openstack.org>, Tom Fifield <tom(a)openstack.org>, Openstack Users <openstack(a)lists.openstack.org> HI Anne and Tom, and everyone here in this mailing list, I do have one question, actually I am relaying a question from someone else in Korea regarding publication of documents. A professor in Korea did translate the entire openstack security-guide document, and he wants to publish translated version as a book with some price tag. He wants to know if he can talk with OpenStack Foundation regarding this commercial publication of OpenStack Document. I told him Document has Creative Common License, and he just needs to follow whatever CC license says. However, if possible, we would like to have some help from you guys =. First, we are not open source license experts. It is a bit tricky to know what CC license exactly means when someone wants to publish “translated version” of a openstack document. Second, he wants to have an opinion form openstack foundation about publication. If you have experienced a similar situation with this one, could you give us some hints or advise? Thank you. Jaesuk Ahn | Ph.D. Senior Director | Co-Founder cloud4u, Inc. *… active member of openstack community *

5 4

Appropriate use of OpenStack CCLA Schedule B...
by McCullough, Theodore 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

Hi Folks: I am interested in using the CCLA Schedule B as a vehicle to make contributions as per the OpenStack CCLA- "Contribution" shall mean the code, documentation or other original works of authorship expressly identified in Schedule B..." Currently, my thought is to post in the GIT Commit Message accompanying the contribution, "Per the terms of the CCLA, this is a CCLA Schedule B Submission" or "CCLA Schedule B Submission". I would like some feedback regarding using the Schedule B to make contributions. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Best regards, -T. Ted McCullough Senior IP Counsel, EMC Corporation 2831 Mission College Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95054 Email- Theodore.mccullough(a)emc.com<mailto:Theodore.mccullough@emc.com> Direct- 408.566.7936 Mobile- 206.595.2502 **THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT** [cid:image001.png@01CF9A0F.684D7F50]

2 1

Appropriate use of OpenStack CCLA Schedule B...
by McCullough, Theodore 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

Hi Folks: I am interested in using the CCLA Schedule B as a vehicle to make contributions as per the OpenStack CCLA- "Contribution" shall mean the code, documentation or other original works of authorship expressly identified in Schedule B..." Currently, my thought is to post in the GIT Commit Message accompanying the contribution, "Per the terms of the CCLA, this is a CCLA Schedule B Submission" or "CCLA Schedule B Submission". I would like some feedback regarding using the Schedule B to make contributions. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Best regards, -T.

2 1

Orange SA : Openstack contribution's process for a supplier of Orange
by christophe.martinez＠orange.com 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms, Your address was giving to me by Stefano Maffulli (OpenStack Foundation). Pleased find, attached to this email, my exchange with Stefano. I'm writing because we signed a CCLA in July or August 2013 with OpenStack (see the documents signed attached to this email) in order to contribute to the community and we are working with a supplier which will be a contributor in the OpenStack community. So we would this supplier contributes directly and on behalf of Orange to your Community. Therefore, Orange has done everything with its supplier in order to give it the rights to contribute on behalf of Orange SA. By the way, we have read within the CCLA (item 4 in the CCLA signed by Orange, pleased find my attached file on this email) this sentence : "You represent further that each employee of the Corporation designated on Schedule A below (or in a subsequent written modification to that Schedule) is authorized to submit Contributions on behalf of the Corporation." You talk about "employees of the Corporation" but what does it means about an employee of a supplier of Orange SA? Supposing that supplier has all the rights by Orange to contribute on behalf of Orange within OpenStack community. Is it possible to add directly the name and the address (email, phone etc.) of the employee(s) of the supplier in the Orange SA's contributors CLA list? Thank you for your help and do not hesitate to ask us if you require any further informations. Regards, Christophe Martinez. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

2 1