On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:07:34PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-05-06 10:39:45 -0400 (-0400), Richard Fontana wrote: [...]
However it is not the case that the OpenStack CLAs "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". That is what the DCO, or a hypothetical differently-drafted CLA, would do; the OpenStack CLAs are broader license grants to the OpenStack Foundation.
Thanks for the clarification. I tried to figure out how to word that, but it's still not entirely clear to me _what_ additional broadness is granted by the OpenStack Foundation ICLA. I'd love it if we had an FAQ with a summary of that additional broadness we could point people to,
It's not a huge difference, but I think it is important for developers to understand the CLA is not an open source license nor does it incorporate an open source license. (Not just developers, as I've encountered some confusion on this point among lawyers, but we don't ask noncontributor lawyers to sign the ICLA, while we are still asking individual developers to sign the ICLA.) The issue is touched upon here https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAndItsCLA#Relationship_to_the_Apach... (That is a wiki page I worked on with markmc last year. It is admittedly a piece of advocacy and contains some assertions that have been disputed by at least one person.)
though I gather lawyers are generally against the idea of summaries of legal agreements since they would counter that the agreement itself is already as summarized as it can be (which doesn't help when it takes a lawyer to interpret and explain it every time the question comes up).
I don't think that's a real problem in this context. I think you might find some disagreement on how exactly the CLAs differ from the Apache License, and maybe some reluctance to acknowledge that disagreement. It should be beyond dispute that they are different licenses, however. RF