- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Re: [legal-discuss] Tracking Openstack Contributions
by Nardozza, Gregg (Gregg) 30 Apr '15

30 Apr '15

Thank you Stefano. I am adding the legal team. Gregg Nardozza [alu-logo-20x20] DMTS - IP Business Development Senior Patent Segment Manager Intellectual Property Business Group Bell Laboratories / Alcatel-Lucent • gregg.nardozza(a)alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:gregg.nardozza@alcatel-lucent.com> This message, intended only for the designated recipient(s), is privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privileges. -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stefano@openstack.org] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:25 PM To: Nardozza, Gregg (Gregg) Subject: Re: Tracking Openstack Contributions Hi Gregg, just a clarification: the website stackalytics.com is not managed by OpenStack Foundation nor it's managed by the OpenStack project. Formally the domain is owned by Mirantis and the development is sponsored mostly by the same company. There is an intention to move all the code and data under the wider openstack community umbrella but no plans nor deadlines have been defined. The Foundation extracts records of contributions from the tools used for openstack development (gerrit, launchpad, git, storyboard, mailing lists, etc) and provides that data on http://activity.openstack.org. Regarding the retention policy, I'm not aware of one formal policy for data retention. I would ask the question on legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org<mailto:legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org> to get the ball moving towards creating one. Cheers, stef On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:07 +0000, Nardozza, Gregg (Gregg) wrote: > Hello Stefano! > > > > I need to know the record retention policy for OpenStack. > > > > We (Alcatel-Lucent) rely on being able to retrieve the information as > shown below from the OpenStack website and need to know the number of > years these records will be publically available and retrievable. > > > > Please let me know who would have this information in the OpenStack > organization or pass this on to whom ever can answer these questions > for me. > > > > Much appreciated. > > > > Gregg Nardozza alu-logo-20x20 > > DMTS - IP Business Development > > Senior Patent Segment Manager > > Intellectual Property Business Group > > Bell Laboratories / Alcatel-Lucent > > *gregg.nardozza(a)alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:*gregg.nardozza@alcatel-lucent.com> > > > > This message, intended only for the designated recipient(s), is > privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the review of the > party to whom it is addressed. If you are not a designated recipient, > you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive > this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete > this message. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of > the attorney-client privilege or any other privileges. > > > > > From: MARGOLIN, Udi (Udi) > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:53 AM > To: Nardozza, Gregg (Gregg) > Subject: RE: Tracking Openstack Contributions > > > > > You have it all – take for example ‘lbortman’ – follow the link: > > > > > > > > Now you get : > > > > > > > > > > If you follow a specific change ID you get all the details: > > > > > >

4 4

Openstack License Agreement for Users
by Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Oulah 30 Apr '15

30 Apr '15

Dears, Good Day ... We are a openstack user, so what's the license agreement ? Is there another licenses with Apache License 2.0. ________________________________ Ahmed Ibrahem Al Oulah | Systems Engineer | RHCE, VCP-5 | Systems & Platforms, Cloud Services Department STC Advance soultions | P.O. Box 50 | Riyadh 11372 | Saudi Arabia | stcas.com.sa T: +96614600111 ext.1276 | Mob: +966-555449133 | E: aoulah(a)stcas.com.sa Disclaimer: This email communication, and its attachment, may contain confidential information and material and it is intended solely for the use of the addressees listed on it. Un-Authorized Access to this email by anyone else is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us via e-mail at (it(a)stcas.com.sa) and immediately delete the message and its attachments from your system. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and may not necessarily reflect views of Saudi Telecommunications Company - Advanced Solutions "STCAS". This email communication cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free and it is the sole responsibility of the recipient to ensure such. STCAS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email domain.

2 1

ICLA
by Piyanai Saowarattitada 03 Apr '15

03 Apr '15

There appears to be two sections of the same text in the current ICLA. <https://review.openstack.org/static/cla.html> The difference appears being reference to LLCs in the first section. Could someone explain why that is ? Perhaps, there is some text describing the rational already but I just don't know it. If that is the case, please provide pointer. Piyanai Massachusetts Open Cloud <https://review.openstack.org/static/cla.html>

2 1

OpenStack brand and docs site
by Anne Gentle 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

Hi all, As the TC continues to add projects to the git openstack namespace, the projects want to publish to docs.openstack.org. Since all of our styling for docs has the OpenStack logo, do we need to take actions to accommodate these projects? Such as: - Require proof signed contract based on definitions at http://www.openstack.org/brand/ from the projects that join through the TC process. - Create doc themes that match definitions for Powered and Compatible that can be applied. - Until these are in place, continue to have those projects publish to Read the Docs or other generic branded sites. I'll bring this up at the TC meeting but I really need legal guidance. Thanks, Anne -- Anne Gentle annegentle(a)justwriteclick.com

2 1

docs licenses: current state and desired state
by Anne Gentle 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Hi all, As promised I investigated the current state of our community guides license indicators and added to the wiki page at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/ContentSpecs Current states: OpenStack Architecture Design Guide: Apache 2.0 and CC-by-sa 3.0 OpenStack Cloud Administrator Guide: Apache 2.0 and CC-by-sa 3.0 OpenStack Install Guides (all): Apache 2.0 OpenStack High Availability Guide: Apache 2.0 OpenStack Configuration Reference: Apache 2.0 OpenStack Security Guide: CC-by 3.0 Virtual Machine Image Guide: CC-by 3.0 OpenStack Operations Guide: CC-by 3.0 OpenStack End User Guide: CC-by 3.0 OpenStack Admin User Guide: CC-by 3.0 Command-Line Interface Reference: CC-by 3.0 Contributor dev docs (docs.openstack.org/developer/<projectname>): none indicated in output; Apache 2.0 in repo OpenStack API Quick Start: none indicated in output; Apache 2.0 in repo API Complete Reference: none indicated in output; Apache 2.0 in repo Infrastructure User Manual: none indicated in output; CC-by 3.0 in repo Desired state: CC-by 3.0 indicated in the output for all guides. Apache 2.0 also indicated in the output for guides containing code and content. Tasks: Change first five listed guides to CC-by 3.0 in source and output. Change API Quick Start to RST so that cc-by 3.0 can be easily indicated. Questions: On guides where the output doesn't indicate a license but the source does; is that sufficient? Thanks for the help -- I can take the tasks on myself, but would like guidance on whether a license indicator on output is required. Thanks, Anne -- Anne Gentle annegentle(a)justwriteclick.com

3 4

Re: [legal-discuss] [OpenStack-docs] Licensing of documentation
by Steve Gordon 20 Mar '15

20 Mar '15

Adding back legal-discuss as while there were some tangential issues around infra being discussed I believe my core question/concern is most definitely a legal one. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon(a)redhat.com> > To: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle(a)gmail.com> > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle(a)gmail.com> > > To: openstack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:36:07 +0100 > > > From: Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)suse.com> > > > To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano(a)openstack.org>, > > > openstack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org > > > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] Licensing of documentation > > > Message-ID: <55092AE7.6040207(a)suse.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > > > On 03/17/2015 07:12 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > > > The conversation has definitely drifted off-topic now :) but I think > > > > it's worth responding here (and eventually move to infra, where it > > > > should continue) > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:57 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > > >> Once we can safely migrate review.openstack.org to > > > >> authenticate against the same openstackid.org identity provider as > > > >> www.openstack.org uses, this should become much simpler again since > > > >> we'll have a way to force contributors to sign up for a foundation > > > >> account (though they'll no longer need to fill out the foundation > > > >> membership form when doing so). > > > > > > > > Indeed, stop using Launchpad and use openstackid.org globally is the > > > > last step we need to accomplish before we can decouple individual > > > > memberships from commit rights. I think we already have all the basic > > > > tools in place to build the list of voters, we need to start thinking > > > > about moving gerrit to use openstackid.org. > > > > > > > > Now, to go back to licensing docs: > > > > > > > > what's the status of licensing for the OpenStack upstream > > > > documentation? > > > > > > > > (I can wait for Anne to come back from holiday if she's the only one > > > > who > > > > can answer this question). > > > > > > ************************** > > > > > > > Sigh, that's not good. I don't want to be the only one who knows this. :) > > > > Technically the docs are still Apache 2.0 because there is no indicator to > > a docs contributor that it would be licensed any other way. (To me, this is > > why we either change the current design or get the transfer underway.) > > What indicator does a contributor get that their contributions are licensed > under Apache 2.0 today? Are we just talking about the marks on the rendered > output (that is, after they already contributed)? > > > Nick Chase did a lot of legwork a few years back looking into what the > > legal need is to get all docs licensed cc-by, and we think we need to have > > all current contributors indicate in writing (somehow) that they license > > the content cc-by. Then the CLA needs to either change or we need a 2nd CLA > > for docs contributions. > > Are we saying here that current contributors to the project have not signed > the CLA? I know this is potentially the case for authors who contributed to > books written in sprints using external tools (Ops Guide, Design Arch Guide) > but ultimately to get into e.g. openstack-manuals someone who has signed the > CLA has to contribute the patch(es) and in doing so grants copyright to the > "Project Manager" no? Maybe I am missing something but I don't understand > why we would need a second CLA here as the existing one doesn't specify a > license either, yet isn't it the mechanism we're using to distribute using > Apache 2.0 today? > > > The desired outcomes are: > > - every reader knows the license > > - all people (corporate contributors, publishers) know if and how to reuse > > the docs > > To be honest from previous discussions (which I believe kicked off Nick's > expedition) I thought we had this nailed but now I'm more confused than when > we started as it seems like we remain in complete limbo on this. Currently > we have: > > - Some books reporting ASL 2.0: E.g. > http://docs.openstack.org/high-availability-guide/content/ > - Some books reporting CC-BY-SA: E.g. > http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ops/content/ > - Some books reporting BOTH: E.g. > http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/ > > ...and I have no idea which ones are correct. The earlier replies seemed to > indicate we should be displaying both, but more recent ones seem to indicate > we should be only displaying ASL 2.0. So in both my roles, as a downstream > and as a contributor I can now count myself as thoroughly confused. > > -Steve > > > - every contributor knows their rights when they write upstream docs > > - contributors are not held liable if the docs are wrong > > - use of the OpenStack brand and logo still go through normal brand > > guidelines > > > > That's all I can think of for now. Let me know if there are additional > > questions or difference in opinion on the outcomes we need. > > > > Anne > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-docs mailing list > > OpenStack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs > > > > -- > Steve Gordon, RHCE > Sr. Technical Product Manager, > Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-docs mailing list > OpenStack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs > -- Steve Gordon, RHCE Sr. Technical Product Manager, Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform

5 10

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

Image Service vs Image service
by Anne Gentle 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

I'm working on a patch that will give the Docs team a consistent list of service names to use for projects. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/150030 In it, I'd like to change the name we use in the docs from Image Service to Image service. Are there any legal ramifications for changing the OpenStack doc reference to Image service, lowercase s? We like to provide consistent names rather than project names as much as possible. Thanks, Anne -- Anne Gentle annegentle(a)justwriteclick.com

1 0

CCLA not available anywhere except the non-printable/non-downloadable esign app?
by Luis Villa 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

Hey, all- I was trying to look at the CCLA, and there doesn't appear to be a copy of it anywhere other than the e-sign form. Is that deliberate? If not, can it be posted somewhere in a downloadable/printable-for-review format? And of course, if I'm simply missing it, I'd recommend linking to it from the following pages, which is where I looked: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/How_To_Contribute#Contributors_License_Agre… https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/HowToUpdateCorporateCLA (The first link has a "preview" of the ICLA but not the CCLA.) Thanks- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*

5 12

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