- legal-discuss - lists.openstack.org

ICLA
by Piyanai Saowarattitada 03 Apr '15

03 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 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '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 25 Mar '15

25 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 20 Mar '15

20 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 06 Feb '15

06 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 05 Feb '15

05 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 21 Jan '15

21 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