- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

CFP: FOSDEM 2015 Legal & Policy Issues DevRoom
by Richard Fontana 17 Oct '14

17 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 08 Jul '14

08 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 08 Jul '14

08 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 07 Jul '14

07 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

CLA Schedule
by Radcliffe, Mark 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

I have received some additional information on adopting the Apache license as a contribution agreement and I want to make sure that I have the time to follow up, so I will be deferring delivery of the framework memo to the Legal Committee until July 7 for review at the July 9 meeting. We will then post it to a site available to the community. Since we have more time I would be interested in continuing to receive information on projects that have adopted the Apache Software License (not the CLA) as their contribution agreement. I am particularly interested in projects that have reviewed the legal issues arising in such a change (and the contact information of the relevant lawyers). I need to get this information by noon PST on June 27 in order to be able to follow it up. Thanks. 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 0

[Fwd: [openstack-dev] mysql/mysql-python license "contamination" into openstack?]
by Mark McLoughlin 21 Jun '14

21 Jun '14

Forwarding a question from openstack-dev about the implications of our use of mysql-python, which is a GPLv2 licensed library. We've had some previous threads about GPL licensed dependencies e.g. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-March/006772.html http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-March/006792.html http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-March/006908.html Mark. -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen(a)windriver.com> > Reply-to: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage > questions\)" <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> > Subject: [openstack-dev] mysql/mysql-python license "contamination" > into openstack? > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:13:05 -0600 > > Hi, > > I'm looking for the community viewpoint on whether there is any chance > of license contamination between mysql and nova. I realize that lawyers > would need to be involved for a proper ruling, but I'm curious about the > view of the developers on the list. > > Suppose someone creates a modified openstack and wishes to sell it to > others. They want to keep their changes private. They also want to use > the mysql database. > > The concern is this: > > nova is apache licensed > sqlalchemy is MIT licensed > mysql-python (aka mysqldb1) is GPLv2 licensed > mysql is GPLv2 licensed > > > > The concern is that since nova/sqlalchemy/mysql-python are all > essentially linked together, an argument could be made that the work as > a whole is a derivative work of mysql-python, and thus all the source > code must be made available to anyone using the binary. > > Does this argument have any merit? > > Has anyone tested any of the mysql DBAPIs with more permissive licenses? > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

4 6

[Fwd: Re: [openstack-dev] mysql/mysql-python license "contamination" into openstack?]
by Mark McLoughlin 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

-------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Mike Bayer <mbayer(a)redhat.com> > Reply-to: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage > questions\)" <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] mysql/mysql-python license > "contamination" into openstack? > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:30:00 -0400 > > On Thu Jun 12 14:13:05 2014, Chris Friesen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm looking for the community viewpoint on whether there is any chance > > of license contamination between mysql and nova. I realize that > > lawyers would need to be involved for a proper ruling, but I'm curious > > about the view of the developers on the list. > > > > Suppose someone creates a modified openstack and wishes to sell it to > > others. They want to keep their changes private. They also want to > > use the mysql database. > > > > The concern is this: > > > > nova is apache licensed > > sqlalchemy is MIT licensed > > mysql-python (aka mysqldb1) is GPLv2 licensed > > mysql is GPLv2 licensed > > > > > > > > The concern is that since nova/sqlalchemy/mysql-python are all > > essentially linked together, an argument could be made that the work > > as a whole is a derivative work of mysql-python, and thus all the > > source code must be made available to anyone using the binary. > > > > Does this argument have any merit? > > the GPL is excepted in the case of MySQL and other MySQL products > released by Oracle (can you imagine such a sentence being > written.....), see > http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/. If > MySQL-Python itself were an issue, OpenStack could switch to another > MySQL library, such as MySQL Connector/Python which is now MySQL's > official Python driver: > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/connector-python/en/index.html > > > Has anyone tested any of the mysql DBAPIs with more permissive licenses? > > I just mentioned other MySQL drivers the other day; MySQL > Connector/Python, OurSQL and pymysql are well tested within SQLAlchemy > and these drivers generally pass all tests. There's some concern over > compatibility with eventlet, however, I can't speak to that just yet. > > > > > Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

1 0