- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

Technical Committee Member Policy - possible error?
by John Davidge 13 Sep '16

13 Sep '16

Hello, I happened to be reading the Technical Committee Member Policy[1] today, and I noticed what I think could be an error. Paragraph 3, subsection (b)(I) states that: "An Individual Member is an ATC who has had a contribution approved for inclusion..." I believe this should read: "An ATC is an Individual Member who has had a contribution approved for inclusion..." Generally speaking, ATCs are a subset of Individual Members, so the definition given doesn't seem right. Approved contributions are not a requirement for Individual Membership. Can anybody confirm? Thanks, John [1] http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ ________________________________ Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England & Wales (company registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington Road, Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - This e-mail message may contain confidential or privileged information intended for the recipient. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at abuse(a)rackspace.com and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated.

3 2

Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-dev] [javascript] [fuel-ui] Is ReactJS OSI Compliant?
by Monty Taylor 11 Sep '16

11 Sep '16

Hey legal discuss folks ... On 09/07/2016 07:06 AM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: > Preface: IANAL (I-am-not-a-lawyer). > > ReactJS claims to be BSD licensed. However, it has a non-BSD patent > rider with a very aggressive "Strong Retaliation Clause", meaning that > if there's ever a patent dispute between [React Project] and Facebook, > the patents are revoked. > > This might be fine. It might not. If possible, I'd like one of the > foundation lawyers to weigh in on this, as one of our projects (Fuel-UI) > is using it. > > Some discussion on the matter: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12108158 > > Our own guidelines. > http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html > > Historically, OpenStack has avoided projects that make custom > modifications to a license (see the do-no-evil license on JSLint/JSHint). > > Michael > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >

3 2

Fwd: [openstack-dev] [javascript] [fuel-ui] Is ReactJS OSI Compliant?
by Davanum Srinivas 07 Sep '16

07 Sep '16

Fwd'ing to legal-discuss from openstack-dev ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Krotscheck <krotscheck(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:06 AM Subject: [openstack-dev] [javascript] [fuel-ui] Is ReactJS OSI Compliant? To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> Preface: IANAL (I-am-not-a-lawyer). ReactJS claims to be BSD licensed. However, it has a non-BSD patent rider with a very aggressive "Strong Retaliation Clause", meaning that if there's ever a patent dispute between [React Project] and Facebook, the patents are revoked. This might be fine. It might not. If possible, I'd like one of the foundation lawyers to weigh in on this, as one of our projects (Fuel-UI) is using it. Some discussion on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12108158 Our own guidelines. http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html Historically, OpenStack has avoided projects that make custom modifications to a license (see the do-no-evil license on JSLint/JSHint). Michael __________________________________________________________________________ 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 -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

1 0

Re: [legal-discuss] retention policy for old docs [WAS: [OpenStack-docs] Change of doc publishing]
by Lana Brindley 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

On 29/08/16 10:32, Lana Brindley wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Docs is planning some infrastructure changes, which would mean we need to consider our retention policy for old documentation on developer.openstack.org and docs.openstack.org. In the course of the discussion (some relevant bits below), we considered it prudent to ask the legal team to find out if Foundation have a retention policy in place for documentation on these sites that we should be aware of. > > Do you know of anything that might be relevant here? > > Thanks, > Lana > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] Change of doc publishing > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:36:53 -0700 > From: Anne Gentle <annegentle(a)justwriteclick.com> > To: Jeremy Stanley <fungi(a)yuggoth.org> > CC: openstack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org <openstack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi(a)yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org>> wrote: > > On 2016-08-26 05:40:31 -0700 (-0700), Anne Gentle wrote: > [...] > > I'd be comfortable with an archive policy that keeps all documents > > (project repos, openstack-manuals, api-site) for two years and > > then backs them up to a storage area that is not accessible from > > the web. > > Probably the closest thing we have to this is our server backups > (implemented using software called "bup"). Their purpose is to be > able to restore the previous state of our important systems in the > event of loss or compromise of service, so possibly not the same > thing you're desiring here. Also, identifying which documents are > "older" than a certain date is nontrivial (we can delete files last > modified before a certain date, but does that actually achieve the > same result?). > > How about taking this from the revision control perspective... we > (presumably) have the source used to build that rendered form of the > documentation all the way back to the beginning, and if someone > really needs (for legal reasons) a copy of it then they can expend > the resources to figure out how to render it again? > > > Lana, I believe you should review that with legal and the Foundation. > > There's the legal-discuss mailing list to get that started. > [...] > > [I am not a lawyer and I'm responding as a concerned member of the > community, not representing the opinions of my employer.] > > I won't object to anyone consulting lawyers, but I'm pretty sure the > Foundation (the only legal entity we really have in this context) is > under no contractual obligation to maintain documentation at all for > software produced by the community. It's probably best to start out > asking them from that angle, rather than soliciting their opinions > on how long they think old releases of software should have rendered > documentation on a Web site (that latter question is something the > community and in particular the community members working on that > content and those systems should be free to decide). > > I can understand the sort of legal paranoia which infects business > uses for documentation, but meeting those requirements falls on > those businesses. For example, Rackspace almost certainly retains > old versions of any documentation they've produced and published on > their site, some of which may be derived from old versions of > OpenStack upstream documentation, but meeting their document > retention requirements is not the legal responsibility of the > OpenStack community at large (how would any court even be able to > enforce such a requirement on our community itself?). > > > This phrasing is a bit strong (paranoia, infection, yikes). I want to be sure to represent that this is clearly an entirely new context, and all I have to draw from is past experiences. We'll need to listen to various representatives in the community to decide what outcomes we want here. > > > > If the OpenStack Foundation really is somehow legally responsible > for keeping and publishing old copies of OpenStack software > documentation, that's something they would need to do directly as > well. They have no authority to impose those requirements on the > community, and to my knowledge not even any mechanisms in place > through which they could ensure it's happening anyway. > > > Okay, this separation of Foundation from infra-team-members helps me understand your perspective in this policy shaping. > > I also want to add that this type of project is a cool opportunity to innovate in docs publishing. You'd learn a ton by helping out, and Andreas is a fantastic teacher, plus the infra team is super lively. At a scale of hundreds of thousands of pages this type of work is crucial, cool, and at a scale that you can have bragging rights on for years to come. :) > > Anne > > > -- > Jeremy Stanley > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-docs mailing list > OpenStack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-docs@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs> > > > > -- Lana Brindley Technical Writer Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia http://lanabrindley.com

1 0

license issue with barbican
by Thomas Bechtold 29 Jul '16

29 Jul '16

Hi, Barbican has a plugin called dogtag[1]. This plugin imports "pki". While I tried to add pki as an extras requirement[2] I realized that it's dogtag-pki[3] that is required and not pki[4]. Using pki leads to an import error because there is code from dogtag-pki needed that is not in pki. So I started to look into dogtag-pki and wanted to add it to the global requirements repository but while doing that I realized that dogtag-pki's license is GPLv2. And according to[5] this is incompatible. How to handle this? Should the dogtag plugin be removed from barbican's source tree? Best, Tom [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/barbican/tree/barbican/plugin/dogta… [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/344232/ [3] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/dogtag-pki [4] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pki [5] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html

2 1

[keystone][murano][trove][imm] Changing OpenStack LLC to OpenStack Foundation
by Amrith Kumar 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

Bug 1214176 seeks to "Fix copyright headers to be compliant with Foundation policies" and one of the changes being made is to substitute "OpenStack Foundation" in places where the code said "OpenStack LLC". Someone just pushed changes to Keystone, Murano and Trove today and I have some concerns about this change. Consider the following changes, [2], [3], [4], and [5]. They assert a copyright in 2011 or 2010 of an entity called "OpenStack Foundation" that was only established in 2012 [6]. Are these changes legally accurate? -amrith [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1214176 [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346675/1/keystone/policy/backends/rules.py [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346673/1/tools/install_venv.py [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346669/1/murano/common/cf_config.py [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346669/1/murano/common/config.py [6] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120919005997/en/OpenStack-Launches-…

4 3

Re: [legal-discuss] [openstack-dev] [keystone][murano][trove][imm] Changing OpenStack LLC to OpenStack Foundation
by Amrith Kumar 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

Dinesh, With the required disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, I believe that the changes proposed to Trove in [1] do not make sense. I am not, I do not believe, competent to answer the question of whether or not the earlier changes to cinderclient or ironic must be reverted. -amrith [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346673/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Bhor, Dinesh [mailto:Dinesh.Bhor@nttdata.com] > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 8:44 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][murano][trove][imm] Changing > OpenStack LLC to OpenStack Foundation > > Hi amrith, > > I can see the patches got merged against that bug with similar changes: > > [python-cinderclient] > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/47453/2/cinderclient/base.py > [ironic] > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/47451/2/ironic/common/image_service.py > > Do you think these changes needs to be reverted ? > > Thank you, > Dinesh Bhor > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amrith Kumar [mailto:amrith@tesora.com] > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 4:30 PM > To: legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [keystone][murano][trove][imm] Changing OpenStack > LLC to OpenStack Foundation > > Bug 1214176 seeks to "Fix copyright headers to be compliant with > Foundation policies" and one of the changes being made is to substitute > "OpenStack Foundation" in places where the code said "OpenStack LLC". > > Someone just pushed changes to Keystone, Murano and Trove today and I have > some concerns about this change. > > Consider the following changes, [2], [3], [4], and [5]. > > They assert a copyright in 2011 or 2010 of an entity called "OpenStack > Foundation" that was only established in 2012 [6]. > > Are these changes legally accurate? > > -amrith > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1214176 > [2] > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346675/1/keystone/policy/backends/rules.p > y > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346673/1/tools/install_venv.py > [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346669/1/murano/common/cf_config.py > [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346669/1/murano/common/config.py > [6] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120919005997/en/OpenStack- > Launches-Independent-Foundation-Begins-Work-Protecting > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest > confidence > for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, > confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, > please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then > delete > and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, > copying > or forwarding. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Fwd: [tc][ansible][ironic] Reusing Ansible code in OpenStack projects
by Pavlo Shchelokovskyy 19 May '16

19 May '16

Hi all, I have a question re FOSS licenses interplay. I am pretty sure that OpenStack community (e.g. openstack-ansible) has already faced such questions and I would really appreciate any advice. We are developing a new ansible-based deployment driver for Ironic [0] and would like to use some parts of ansible-lib Python API to avoid boilerplate code in custom Ansible modules and callbacks we are writing, and in the future probably use Ansible Python API to launch playbooks themselves. The problem is Ansible and ansible-lib in particular are licensed under GPL v3 [1] "or later" [2]. According to [3] Apache 2.0 license is only one way compatible with GPL v3 (GPL v3-licensed code can include Apache 2.0-licensed code, but not vice versa). I am by far not a legal expert, so my questions are: Does it mean that the moment I do "from ansible import ..." in my Python code, which AFAIU means I am "linking" to it, I am required to use a GPLv3-compliant license for my code too (in particular not Apache 2.0)? What problems might that imply in respect with including such code in an OpenStack project (e.g. submitting it to Ironic repo) and distributing the project? If there are indeed problems with that, would it be safer to keep the code in a separate project and also distribute it separately? Even when distributed separately, will merely using (dynamically importing at run-time) a GPLv3-licensed driver from ApacheV2-licensed Ironic constitute any license violation? Note that technically we could avoid re-using Ansible code for Ansible modules and callbacks, just that it would be much-much less convenient. [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bug/1526308 [1] https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/COPYING [2] https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/__init__.py#L8 [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Best regards, Dr. Pavlo Shchelokovskyy Senior Software Engineer Mirantis Inc www.mirantis.com

4 3

[keystone] ldappool - using MPL licensed code in-tree
by Steve Martinelli 12 May '16

12 May '16

A bit of background: - In order to make keystone py3 compatible, we have to make our LDAP code compatible - We use two libraries for our LDAP code: python-ldap and ldappool, both are not actively maintained - python-ldap has a py3 port called pyldap. Great! - ldappool does not have a py3 port. With all that said, ldappool is only a few hundred lines of code. Can we pull it in-tree? It looks like ldappool is MPL licensed: Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 Exact license for ldappool is here: https://github.com/mozilla-services/ldappool/blob/master/ldappool/__init__.… We have a patch that pulls it in tree up for review (with a few changes to make it py3 friendly): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311827/3/keystone/common/ldap/ldappool.py stevemar

1 1

Licensing for specs repos
by Ben Swartzlander 09 May '16

09 May '16

I started a thread [1] on the dev mailing list but wasn't able to get any helpful answers... The Manila project is creating a new repo for specs, and while looking at what other projects have done for specs repos, I could not figure out which license was being used. It seems that most specs repos (nova, cinder, neutron, contain a mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed stuff and CCBY (Creative Commons) licensed stuff. Some of these repos contain apparently-conflicting license declarations, with CCBY specified in the LICENSE file, but Apache 2.0 specified in the setup.cfg file. In all cases, individual files contain their own license declarations at the top and all of these repos contain some clearly Apache 2.0 licensed files (the python code in the repo) and some CCBY licensed files (the specs themselves). It seems unavoidable that we will have a similar situation in Manila, so I'm trying to figure out what to do at the top level for the LICENSE file and what license to point to in setup.cfg. Is there a way to explain to users that the project contains a mixture of 2 licenses? Is that acceptable or desirable? -Ben Swartzlander Manila PTL [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/094065.html

2 1