- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Legal Affairs Committee meeting
by Strottman, Nissa 01 May '15

01 May '15

Hi- The next meeting of the OpenStack Legal Affairs Committee meeting will be held Wednesday, May 6, 2015, at 1 p.m. PT. Dial-in information, etc., is below. Please let me know if you have any questions . Best, Nissa Join online meeting<https://join.houston.hp.com/meet/nissa.strottman/BQCH66WT> https://join.houston.hp.com/meet/nissa.strottman/BQCH66WT Join by Phone +1-978-289-4114 (USA, Andover, MA) +1-678-367-0003 (USA, Atlanta, GA) +1-512-865-6123 (USA, Austin, TX) +1-208-629-2920 (USA, Boise, ID) +1-970-672-4888 (USA, Fort Collins. CO) +1-281-377-1991 (USA, Houston, TX) +1-650-300-4050 (USA, Palo Alto, CA) 1-855-493-4983 (USA/ Canada HP Customers/Partners) Find a local number<https://join.houston.hp.com/dialin> Conference ID: 437192273 Forgot your dial-in PIN?<https://join.houston.hp.com/dialin> | First online meeting?<http://r.office.microsoft.com/r/rlidOC10?clid=1033&p1=4&p2=1041&pc=oc&ver=4…> Nissa M. Strottman Software, Cloud and Open Source Office of the General Counsel nissa.strottman(a)hp.com<mailto:nissa.strottman@hp.com> T +1 650 857 6279 M +1 650 387 4987 F +1 650 857 5409 Hewlett-Packard Company 3000 Hanover Street MS 1601 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1112 USA [HP]<http://www.hp.com/>

1 0

Re: [legal-discuss] Tracking Openstack Contributions
by Nardozza, Gregg (Gregg) 01 May '15

01 May '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 01 May '15

01 May '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 04 Apr '15

04 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 01 Apr '15

01 Apr '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 26 Mar '15

26 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 21 Mar '15

21 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 17 Mar '15

17 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 07 Feb '15

07 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 06 Feb '15

06 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 22 Jan '15

22 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 12 Dec '14

12 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 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 11 Sep '14

11 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 21 Jul '14

21 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 24 Jun '14

24 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

Copyright statements in source
by Rich Bowen 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Stefano suggested that I bring this to the legal-discuss list. I know that this has been discussed in the past, so I don't anticipate a great shift in sentiment, but it seemed worth discussing. My full thoughts are on my blog - http://drbacchus.com/copyright-statements-in-source-files - and I know some of you have seen this discussed on the docs mailing list, or seen it on planet.openstack Anyways, it has been my experience in Open Source communities that having a copyright statement at the top of a source file can be very off-putting to people who want to contribute to that file, due to the perception that it is "owned" by someone in particular. The statement is not necessary: copyright law ensures that contributors have copyright on the content that they author, and git keeps a permanent record of who contributed what. Some folks have claimed (the last time this came up on this list) that the statement was necessary, and this is not the case. It's also unscalable - think in terms of 10 years from now when every file potentially lists hundreds of copyright holders - or perhaps only those who saw fit to add their name to the growing list. What would this contribute? And if people are contributing solely for recognition - which seems at least part of the motivation for a copyright statement, perhaps 1) they're missing the point of Open Source and 2) we should provide a more public means of thanking the enormous list of contributors, rather than having it scattered across thousands of files that relatively few people will ever see. -- Rich Bowen - rbowen(a)redhat.com OpenStack Community Liaison http://openstack.redhat.com/

15 39

OpenStack and its CLA
by Radcliffe, Mark 12 Jun '14

12 Jun '14

One recent development of interest was Joyent's removal of the CLA for node.js http://www.joyent.com/blog/broadening-node-js-contributions. Please note that node.js is licensed under MIT so not an exact analog. 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.

3 2