- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

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

legal affairs committee meeting
by Strottman, Nissa 05 Oct '15

05 Oct '15

The next legal affairs committee meeting will be held Wednesday, October 14 at 4 pm ET/1 pm PT. 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 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

Center for Internet Security hardening standards
by Major Hayden 17 Sep '15

17 Sep '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello there, I'm currently working on a security hardening spec[1] and blueprint[2] for openstack-ansible. The goal is to bring additional security to OpenStack hosts via openstack-ansible and also to help organizations down the path to various compliance programs (like PCI). One of the firm PCI requirements[2] is PCI DSS Requirement 2.2 (page 30 in the PDF) which states that organizations must adhere to "industry-accepted" hardening standards. A few examples include Center for Internet Security (CIS), ISO, SANS, and NIST. Most of these are geared towards deployments of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Windows, not Ubuntu. CIS seems to have the most comprehensive security hardening standards available for Ubuntu, and I'm able to port many of their recommendations for RHEL-based systems over to Ubuntu systems. However, their terms of use appears to be fairly strict. Rackspace (my employer) is a CIS member, but the OpenStack Foundation is not (as far as I know). I've reached out to CIS' member services group via our Rackspace account to find out if there's a possibility to license these hardening standards for open source use with OpenStack projects, but I'm not sure who they should get in contact with on the OpenStack side to discuss it. Would anyone be able to advise me on how to proceed? Thanks a bunch! [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/222619/ [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ansible/+spec/security-hardening [3] https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI_DSS_v3-1.pdf [4] https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/downloads/form/index.cfm - -- Major Hayden -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV+sIhAAoJEHNwUeDBAR+xlqEQAJWZV23yNWV7+XN1Pm7Utb6R D+pwPfN9up7RMhK5OFzvRGSEaGiQPRop+ENKNeBfiRfLCkI6mx2w5Z58E5NQCJEs v4ddxY5LokzOpizDmFl2Dkq3mrPCyC6bAE1tml5KF80vM5Vkt2IHnt7w5Q9QQ4hF UOcKI/4DFB2USO5lQr8jUMILzBUHLB+QO9L4NVxvYiz6LS1xgDRQ7AbmdloldLZb UqbqZ4rswfpSwCMn+h2jpBDwVzIykg22jdYQY61as8I1i7HrZoXBF2TaSyGc4lca FAzMxYBF7swWQ+W+/uk8+SUYOgqVSqslHtDyxKbz03JPlMhkSgAVAF80Q0AGE3Yt eq85QdLHkJnpdZNEfQ/TQHki+2seL+UNM/iSHlx//M+Qa5AZdgk+noEOhGT/dH3I +Bmz/PGBLJM67oow82No28tEo05xVtIGgDt5bUVf0oWCYy0OHjaLJ8w0DBrKXXlX otKsn5Q0Z08WUreX7fL74snb2yhg0BsGuR/NsHkJ2YQbG67v4Cr1QhCL8UAyI+OU MIRG1eswdERZKpBzBO6d+h4GsfEo7fDB6Q0uHe9kiwzVq5gHCI3t/miYwz4vabYR uZ4YVnfNfAmbjhh5I/uSAf2ie4T9h2b+yoqG6Yn51p43aLuZEHcPmc1VVv7M50Dz KDQ5nkxc/3XQcnmrZV7j =u4SR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Incorporating MIT licensed code
by Major Hayden 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

Hello there, I just reviewed the Legal Issues FAQ[1], but I have some more specific questions around adding MIT licensed code to an OpenStack project that has traditionally been Apache licensed. I've already ensured that the file in question has the appropriate header and copyright details, but I'm unsure about how to handle the root LICENSE file within the repository. The FAQ mentions: > Probably the easiest thing to do when incorporating BSD or MIT licensed code is to copy the copyright/license header from the source file into the destination file, as well as copying the copyright notice, license and disclaimer into the toplevel LICENSE file with a brief explanation of which code is under that license. Should I put a divider in the LICENSE file and paste in the MIT license details after that? This may be a silly question (please let me know if it is), but I wanted to make sure I was following the legal instructions very carefully. Thank you! [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ -- Major Hayden

2 2

Legal Affairs Committee Follow Up
by Radcliffe, Mark 27 Jul '15

27 Jul '15

At the last meeting, I stated that I was not aware of any litigation to enforce the Apache Software License. I have done a Westlaw search and have confirmed that there have been no reported cases to enforce the Apache Software License. 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

Licensing options for new project (Kolla) entering big tent
by Steven Dake (stdake) 10 Jul '15

10 Jul '15

Hi folks, Kolla is a project for OpenStack with the mission [1]: " Kolla provides production-ready containers and deployment tools for operating OpenStack clouds that are scalable, fast, reliable, and upgradable using community best practices. " We use a set of libraries only available in Ansible v2.0. Shade [2] ASL2.0 uses these Ansible python libraries [3] licensed under a GPLv3 license. We use Shade in Kolla directly. We had planned to fork these libraries in [3] and cherry-pick only the modules we really need until Ansible 2.0 is available. I asked the TC if this approach would be in violation of the governance repository here: https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/new-projects-… To which Robert Collins suggested I speak with legal-discuss in this thread [4]. “ As I understand our current license situation, you won't be eligible for big-tent if you depend on GPLv3 code. >From the requirements " * Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed or deployed " So I'm also strongly inclined to recommend you speak to the legal list about the implications here. Using a GPLv3 tool via the CLI is very different (by the GPL's design) to using it as a library. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcollins(a)hp.com<mailto:rbtcollins@hp.com>> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud “ I’d really like a solution that doesn’t involve rewriting all of the Ansible modules from scratch in a different license, but I guess we can do that if necessary. Can the OpenStack legal team provide some guidance for future TC voting around the thread in [4]? Our deadline for this work is July 31, but we need several weeks to make adjustments to our plans, so if appropriate guidance for the Technical Committee (and our community project) could be offered soon, it would be much appreciated. Regards, -steve [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Kolla [2] https://github.com/openstack-infra/shade [3] https://github.com/ansible/ansible-modules-core The thread: [4] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/068612.html

7 16

Trademark policy page bug report: missing logos
by Dolph Mathews 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

(There might be a more appropriate place to send this note, such as a launchpad project or an email.address(a)openstack.org, but I could not find it. I trust that someone here can direct this to the right person!) In reading the OpenStack trademark policy [1], there are three occurrences of the phrase "shown immediately below" which imply that logos are intended to be included within the document, but no logos are included at all (or attempted to be included, according to the HTML source). [1] http://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-trademark-policy/ -Dolph

2 2

StackForge and IP.
by Joe Marshall (projectcalico.org) 06 May '15

06 May '15

Hello, Following a suggestion from Jeremy Stanley (below), I'm contacting this list. If I understand Jeremy correctly, checking code in to StackForge does not transfer any IP, or grant any rights, other than those granted in the license declaration that we make in our code (in this case, the Apache 2.0 license). Is that correct? Many thanks, Joe Marshall. -----Original Message----- From: Emma Gordon Sent: 06 May 2015 13:06 To: Joe Marshall Subject: FW: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugin] Contributor license agreement for fuel plugin code? -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Stanley [mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org] Sent: 06 May 2015 12:58 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Plugin] Contributor license agreement for fuel plugin code? On 2015-05-06 11:02:42 +0000 (+0000), Emma Gordon (projectcalico.org) wrote: > If fuel plugin code is checked into a stackforge repository (as > suggested in the fuel plugin wiki > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Repo) who owns that > code? I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the individual copyright holders mentioned in comments at the tops of various files, listed in an AUTHORS file (if included) and indicated within the repository's Git commit history retain rights over their contributions in a project relying on the Apache License (or those rights may belong to their individual respective employers in a work-for-hire situation as well). > Is there a contributor license agreement to sign? (For example, > contributors to OpenStack would sign this > https://review.openstack.org/static/cla.html) If Fuel is planning to apply for inclusion in OpenStack, then it may make sense to get all current and former contributors to its source repositories to agree to the OpenStack Individual Contributor License Agreement. Note that it does _not_ change the ownership of the software (copyrights), it's intended to simply reinforce the OpenStack Foundation's ability to continue to redistribute the software under the Apache License by affirming that the terms of the license are applied correctly and intentionally. More detailed questions are probably best posed to the legal-discuss(a)lists.openstack.org<mailto:legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org> mailing list, or to your own private legal representation. -- Jeremy Stanley

5 7