- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Legal Considerations for VPS / Cloud Hosting Providers in Terms of User Data & Compliance
by virtualassistantguybd＠gmail.com 16 Sep '25

16 Sep '25

Hello Legal-Discuss members, I hope you’re all doing well. I’m writing to open a discussion about legal requirements and best practices that VPS / cloud hosting providers (like those offering virtual private servers, dedicated servers, etc.) should follow concerning user data, service agreements, and regulatory compliance. I operate in the hosting industry and want to ensure that our processes are aligned with legal expectations globally and in specific jurisdictions (for instance data protection laws, acceptable use policies, etc.). Here are a few points I’d like to cover and get feedback on: What are the essential elements that must be included in a Hosting Provider’s Terms of Service (ToS) / Service Level Agreement (SLA), considering liabilities, user privacy, data retention, and breach notification? How do different jurisdictions (EU GDPR, US state laws, possibly Asia) treat data stored on VPS/cloud servers, especially user data that might be personal or sensitive? What obligations should a hosting provider anticipate? What best practices exist for ensuring legal compliance related to: Logging and monitoring user actions Handling abuse and takedown requests Data encryption & backups Dispute resolution Are there known legal precedents or cases (in any major jurisdiction) where a hosting provider was held liable for user content or abuse that occurred on their servers? What are the risks of using third-party infrastructure or tools (e.g. cloud platforms, backend APIs) that may affect liability or compliance? I’d appreciate insights, resources, or examples from members who have direct experience with these matters. If people have template clauses or policy examples that can be shared (where permitted), that would be very helpful. Thank you all for your time, and I look forward to learning from your collective expertise. Best regards, Atal Networks official team website url https://atalnetworks.com/

1 0

[administrivia] Recent change in moderation for new subscribers
by Jeremy Stanley 27 Mar '25

27 Mar '25

Due to a spammer subscribing to legal-discuss earlier today in order to send off-topic messages to the list, I've altered the default behavior for posts from new subscribers. For now, if someone subscribes, their initial post to the list will be held for moderation in order for our moderators to make sure it's a legitimate post, before setting their subscription to bypass moderation for any subsequent posts they make. Note that this only affects new subscriptions as of now, anyone who has already subscribed to the list before now should see no change in how things work for them. As for the spam to the list today, I've blocked that subscriber from sending any new messages and deleted their off-topic posts from the public archive. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

Apache license header in Puppet manifests
by Francesco Di Nucci 06 Mar '25

06 Mar '25

Hi all, the PR 943232 to puppet-horizon led to an interesting IRC discussion with Takashi and Tobias about the (not) usage of the Apache license header in Puppet manifests. Actually the OpenStack puppet-* modules have the LICENSE file and almost all the Puppet manifests do NOT have an header on top to state the license. On one hand Apache license help <https://www.apache.org/legal/apply-license.html#new> states that "Each original source document (code and documentation, but not the LICENSE and NOTICE files) should include a short license header at the top"; on the other hand a lot of Puppet modules on the Forge seems to not use it (including Puppetlabs' and Puppet's). Are we missing something in interpreting the license or should we add the license header on top of all files? Thanks in advance -- Francesco Di Nucci System Administrator Compute & Networking Service, INFN Naples Email:francesco.dinucci@na.infn.it

3 4

We need the last modification date in the CoC
by Alvaro Soto 20 Nov '24

20 Nov '24

Hi all, I personally believe it'll be a good idea to have the last modification date in our CoC [1]. It's hard to know if has been modified and if we need to read it again to understand the changes. From my end, I need to have this information to translate the changes to my local community. [1] https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct How can we work this out? Cheers.

2 2

[administrivia] Recent spam on this list
by Jeremy Stanley 09 Oct '24

09 Oct '24

A spammer subscribed and sent several messages to the list in the past few minutes. I've blocked them from sending any further messages and deleted the initial ones from the list archive. If the problem resurfaces with additional users, I'll switch the list to initially moderate new subscribers or even just set it fully moderated (this particular mailing list gets so little traffic that it wouldn't impede discussion that much anyway). -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

LICENSE question - Openstack Masakari
by Michal Arbet 15 Aug '24

15 Aug '24

Hello, I would like to implement the option to use the OpenStack project Masakari together with HashiCorp Consul. Currently, Corosync is used, but it has a limitation of 32 hosts. However, my question is, if I develop a way to build the image (OpenStack project Kolla) and orchestration (OpenStack project Kolla-Ansible) of the Consul project as a necessary tool in connection with Masakari, is it possible to merge such code? I am asking because Consul is under the BSL 1.1 license and according to https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html, such questions need to be consulted on this mailing list. Consul license https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/blob/main/LICENSE The BSL 1.1 text includes the sentence: "The Licensor hereby grants you the right to copy, modify, create derivative works, redistribute, and make non-production use of the Licensed Work. The Licensor may make an Additional Use Grant, above, permitting limited production use." and in the Consul License, this passage is defined as follows: Additional Use Grant: You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided Your use does not include offering the Licensed Work to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis in order to compete with HashiCorp's paid version(s) of the Licensed Work. For purposes of this license: Does this mean that it meets the requirements of OpenStack Governance? Even though it is not an OSI-approved license? Thank you very much Michal Arbet Openstack Engineer Ultimum Technologies a.s. Na Poříčí 1047/26, 11000 Praha 1 Czech Republic +420 604 228 897 michal.arbet(a)ultimum.io *https://ultimum.io <https://ultimum.io/>* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/ultimum-technologies> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/ultimumtech> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ultimumtechnologies/timeline>

4 9

CoC translation to Spanish
by Alvaro Soto 07 Mar '24

07 Mar '24

Hi all, As part of being a more inclusive community, I started a translation process on the CoC using our GitHub repository[1], and with the LATAM community, we are managing to finish it[2]. However, we would like to get the approval so this can be official. From Allison's comments, I understand that the foundation doesn't have any Spanish-fluent employees. So, my question is: - How can we get this translation validated? - What will you need from us to do, so we can get this translation as official? 1- https://github.com/opensource-latinamerica/openinframx/issues/5 2- https://github.com/opensource-latinamerica/openinframx/blob/5-post-add-open… Cheers! -- Alvaro Soto *Note: My work hours may not be your work hours. Please do not feel the need to respond during a time that is not convenient for you.* ---------------------------------------------------------- Great people talk about ideas, ordinary people talk about things, small people talk... about other people.

1 0

Outreachy applicant Harshita Verma
by 174_Harshita verma 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

To post to this mailing list. harshita174btcse21(a)igdtuw.ac.in

1 0

GPLv3 and Apache2 licences for Openstack repos
by Sergey Sh 10 Dec '19

10 Dec '19

Hi, all I wonder if I can get help here or suggestions for licenses question. We move Ansible modules from upstream Ansible repository to Openstack namespace. In parallel, we need to develop new modules and modules that will replace those moved from Ansible. Moved original modules won't change. The problem is that Ansible and its modules have GPLv3 license and repositories of Openstack have Apache2. There are about 150+ people committed to Ansible modules for years, so it's hardly possible to get approval for relicensing from everyone. How can we handle this situation without violating licenses and agreements? As I see it's 3 options 1. Move GPL modules to SIG repo in Openstack, freeze them there, and create a new Openstack repo with Apache2 license and develop the new modules in it. Won't it be a problem if new modules will have the same functionality as GPL ones? 2. Move GPL modules to SIG repo in Openstack, to develop new modules in GPL there. 3. Move GPL modules to SIG repo in Openstack, to develop new modules in Apache2 there. I think because of partial incompatibility of Apache2 <-> GPLv3 licenses option 3 is barely viable [1] Option 2 is less preferred because it puts module aside from all Openstack projects that have Apache2 license. What are the potential issues of option 1? I'd appreciate any ideas or opinions about the topic. Thanks [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html *Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF's licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors' interpretation of copyright law.* -- Best regards Sagi Shnaidman

3 2

Seeking approval for inclusion of Scapy in global-requirements
by Nate Johnston 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

OpenStack legal-discuss, Hello, my name is Nate Johnston and I work primarily on OpenStack neutron. I am currently working on a new feature to permit or restrict traffic based on ethertype. This is a change that has security implications, because it allows us to restrict certain types of network traffic that we have ignored until now - specifically ethertypes other than IPv4, IPv6 and ARP within an L2 broadcast domain. In order to properly test this functionality I needed to create packets with custom ethertypes and test their arrival or non-arrival. The best tool for this is the 'scapy' library, which is licensed GPL v2. This would be a testing-only usage, and would not be used at runtime, so per the Licensing Requirements page I am seeking approval from you. The requirements change where I have requested this is [1]; the homepage for the Scapy project is [2]. Thanks, Nate Johnston [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/671776/ [2] https://scapy.net/

2 1

Fwd: [OpenStack Foundation] OSF Product Classification Matrix
by Fred Li 21 May '19

21 May '19

Hope legal discussion team can help on this topic. Thanks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mohammed Naser <mnaser(a)vexxhost.com> Date: Tue, May 21, 2019 at 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] OSF Product Classification Matrix To: Fred Li <yongle.li(a)gmail.com> Cc: <foundation(a)lists.openstack.org>, <foundation-board(a)lists.openstack.org> On Tue, May 21, 2019, 7:20 PM Fred Li <yongle.li(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I am wondering whether projects under OpenStack Foundation follows US > Export Regulations[1] or not. I tried check OpenStack legal > documents[2], but didn't find anything about this topic. > As an example, ASF listed the ECCN (Export Control Classification > Number) for its software [3]. I don't know where I can find OpenStack > projects' ECCN. First off -- I'm sorry that this is even something you have to deal with right now. We should focus on ensuring that we maintain our four opens. http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss I suggest perhaps forwarding your email to the mailing list above. > Hope you can help to point the information. > > [1] http://www.bis.doc.gov/ > [2] https://www.openstack.org/legal/ > [3] https://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ > > -- > Regards > Fred Li (李永乐) > > _______________________________________________ > Foundation mailing list > Foundation(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation -- Regards Fred Li (李永乐)

1 1

Re: [legal-discuss] [tc] OpenStack code and GPL libraries
by Jeremy Stanley 05 Feb '19

05 Feb '19

On 2019-02-04 14:42:04 +0100 (+0100), Ilya Shakhat wrote: > I am experimenting with automatic verification of code licenses of > OpenStack projects and see that one of Rally dependencies has GPL3 > license [...] To start off, it looks like the license for morph is already known to the Rally developers, based on the inline comment for it at https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/rally/tree/requirements.txt?id=362… (so hopefully this is no real surprise). The source of truth for our licensing policies, as far as projects governed by the OpenStack Technical Committee are concerned (which openstack/rally is), can be found here: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html It has a carve out for "tools that are run with or on OpenStack projects only during validation or testing phases of development" which "may be licensed under any OSI-approved license" and since the README.rst for Rally states it's a "tool & framework that allows one to write simple plugins and combine them in complex tests scenarios that allows to perform all kinds of testing" it probably meets those criteria. As for concern that a Python application which imports another Python library at runtime inherits its license and so becomes derivative of that work, that has been the subject of much speculation. In particular, whether a Python import counts as "dynamic linking" in GPL 3.0 section 1 is debatable: https://bytes.com/topic/python/answers/41019-python-gpl https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1487/how-does-the-gpls-linki… https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/87446/using-a-gplv3… https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40492518/is-an-import-in-python-conside… I'm most definitely not a lawyer, but from what I've been able to piece together it's the combination of rally+morph which potentially becomes GPLv3-licensed when distributed, not the openstack/rally source code itself. This is really more of a topic for the legal-discuss mailing list, however, so I am cross-posting my reply there for completeness. To readers only of the legal-discuss ML, the original post can be found archived here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002356… -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

On the problem of OSF copyright headers
by Jeremy Stanley 29 Aug '18

29 Aug '18

Just a heads up, the perennial topic of copyright assignment misconceptions has reared its head again. I've posted http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-August/133929.html on the openstack-dev mailing list proposing that we should have somewhere more formal than a wiki article to put the summary for that. -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

Third party file inclusion in Openstack sushy project
by mail＠clusums.eu 17 Aug '18

17 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 31 Jan '18

31 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 27 Jul '17

27 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 10 Feb '17

10 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 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '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

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

03 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