- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

[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 02 Jan '17

02 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

[kolla]is it OK to modify python code in OpenStack project?
by Jeffrey Zhang 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

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/2258b276cbd038e73797cfa0952da371/revision… [3] https://docs.python.org/3/license.html -- Regards, Jeffrey Zhang Blog: http://xcodest.me

3 2

Re: [legal-discuss] [all][tc][kolla]is it OK to modify python code in OpenStack project?
by Michał Jastrzębski 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

Added all and tc tags, as it might affect everyone really. On 25 December 2016 at 23:04, Jeffrey Zhang <zhang.lei.fly(a)gmail.com> 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/2258b276cbd038e73797cfa0952da371/revision… > [3] https://docs.python.org/3/license.html > > > -- > Regards, > Jeffrey Zhang > Blog: http://xcodest.me > > _______________________________________________ > legal-discuss mailing list > legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss >

4 3

Re: [legal-discuss] [all][tc][kolla]is it OK to modify python code in OpenStack project?
by Jeffrey Zhang 26 Dec '16

26 Dec '16

not simple override the _read() method. I also copied some code from ConfigParser.py(more than 80%, i think). is that OK? is there any difference between override method and copy codes? On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred(a)inaugust.com> wrote: > On 12/26/2016 07:27 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > PSF is ok per (https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing. > html) > > Though the overriding the _read() seems like something that could > > break easily > > Yah - you can't relicense it - but you can include it with the PSF > license. It might be worth adding a PSF license header to that file and > a note that the code is copied from [0] > > That said - I agree with dims, overriding the _read() method like that > seems prone to sadness. > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Michał Jastrzębski <inc007(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Added all and tc tags, as it might affect everyone really. > >> > >> On 25 December 2016 at 23:04, Jeffrey Zhang <zhang.lei.fly(a)gmail.com> > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Regards, > >>> Jeffrey Zhang > >>> Blog: http://xcodest.me > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

AGPLv3+ acceptable for third party dependencies?
by Ade Lee 11 Nov '16

11 Nov '16

Hi, Just a quick question: Is AGPLv3+ an acceptable license for a third party library that is a dependency for an Openstack project? I read: (from http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html) In order to be acceptable as dependencies of OpenStack projects, external libraries (produced and published by 3rd-party developers) must be licensed under an OSI-approved license that does not restrict distribution of the consuming project. The list of acceptable licenses includes ASLv2, BSD (both forms), MIT, PSF, LGPL, ISC, and MPL. Licenses considered incompatible with this requirement include GPLv2, GPLv3, and AGPL. Is AGPL the same as AGPLv3 (and therefore not acceptable)? Thanks, Ade Lee

5 7

[tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3
by Michał Jastrzębski 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

Cross-post from [1] Hello everyone, I'm looking for legal advice about having GPLv3 file in Kolla repository. Our use case doesn't seem to be derivative, so I think that should be possible to pull off - having an single gpl v3 module within Kolla without affecting general Kolla license, but it's highly unorthodox so I would like to have second opinion on that front. Regards, Michal inc0 Jastrzebski [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-November/106761.html

3 4

Adding license header to autogenerated content
by Steve Martinelli 22 Oct '16

22 Oct '16

I recently came across a patch [1] that is trying to add the Apache license to an autogenerated file. We've recently had issues with contributors finding patches that apply to all the projects; this would definitely be one of those. My quick search [2] is showing that around 350 repositories have the license in the file. Out of the 1000+ we have in openstack (not including what's in openstack-infra or openstack-dev) Yes, it's a python file, there is some "code" there, but it's auto-generated, either from sphinx or our cookiecutter (which now includes the license [3]). So before we use up resources in merging a bunch of patches, I wanted to know if the license was actually necessary. Thanks for reading, Steve [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/377170/1 [2] http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=Apache&i=nope&files=doc%2Fsource%2Fconf.… [3] https://github.com/openstack-dev/cookiecutter/blob/master/%7B%7Bcookiecutte…

4 6

Question on the ICLA
by Michael Latchmansingh 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

Hi OpenStack legal community I have a question on the purpose of the ICLA. In attempting to setup my local Git repository with the OpenStack Gerrit system, I ran into an issue where I was asked to sign the ICLA. My submissions to OpenStack are on behalf of the company I work for, and we have already a signed CCLA. Our general counsel does not want me to sign an individual CLA because I do not own any of the IP being submitted. Can you clarify, in legal terms for my general counsel, why there is this requirement? Thanks and Regards, Michael Latchmansingh | Director, Product Development 954-377-6058 t 561-927-5754 c michael.latchmansingh.datacore (skype) DataCore Software Corporation Corporate Park 6300 NW 5th Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 http://www.datacore.com<http://www.datacore.com/>

7 6