While reviewing an incubation request for a new project, Barbican [1], I see that it would be adding a new dependency, Celery. As noted below, Celery uses the 3-clause BSD license. On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
** Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed [1]
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/barbican/tree/tools/pip-requires
It looks like the only item here not in the global requirements is Celery, which is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license.
https://github.com/celery/celery/blob/master/LICENSE
A notable point is this clause:
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I'm not sure if we have other dependencies using this license already. It's also not clear how to interpret this when Python is always distributed as source. We can take this up on the legal-discuss mailing list.
My questions: 1) Do we already have dependencies that use this license? Do we have a master list somewhere? 2) How does the documentation clause apply for a Python project? 3) If we don't already have dependencies using this license, what do others thing about accepting it (or not) for OpenStack? [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/020856.html -- Russell Bryant
On 2013-12-02 12:00:44 -0500 (-0500), Russell Bryant wrote:
While reviewing an incubation request for a new project, Barbican [1], I see that it would be adding a new dependency, Celery. As noted below, Celery uses the 3-clause BSD license. [...]
It's worth noting that the version of celery distributed on PyPI is a major version ahead of what's carried in Debian/Ubuntu currently, and between those versions they switched some of the contents of the source repository (notably all their documentation) to a non-commercial license... so it may be quite some time before distributions which care about free documentation will be carrying anywhere near as recent of a version as we'd be testing with in our infrastructure. -- Jeremy Stanley
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 12:00:44PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
While reviewing an incubation request for a new project, Barbican [1], I see that it would be adding a new dependency, Celery. As noted below, Celery uses the 3-clause BSD license.
On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
** Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed [1]
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/barbican/tree/tools/pip-requires
It looks like the only item here not in the global requirements is Celery, which is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license.
https://github.com/celery/celery/blob/master/LICENSE
A notable point is this clause:
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I'm not sure if we have other dependencies using this license already. It's also not clear how to interpret this when Python is always distributed as source. We can take this up on the legal-discuss mailing list.
My questions:
1) Do we already have dependencies that use this license? Do we have a master list somewhere?
I believe there was a plan some time ago to make up a master list of licenses of dependencies but I am not sure if that got off the ground.
2) How does the documentation clause apply for a Python project?
From the OpenStack Project's perspective, I would assume that clause is not triggered at all.
3) If we don't already have dependencies using this license, what do others thing about accepting it (or not) for OpenStack?
Seems clear to me that it should be acceptable. While the issue that led to this FAQ was specifically some 2-clause BSD-licensed code, rather than 3-clause BSD, see: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Incorporating_BSD.2FMIT_Licen... The Apache Software Foundation considers 3-clause BSD to be a so-called Category A license, FWIW, and I would say it is commonly assumed that 3-clause BSD code can be used by or incorporated within Apache License 2.0 projects, subject to the point made in the above-referenced FAQ. - RF
On 12/02/2013 01:11 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 12:00:44PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
While reviewing an incubation request for a new project, Barbican [1], I see that it would be adding a new dependency, Celery. As noted below, Celery uses the 3-clause BSD license.
On 12/02/2013 11:53 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
** Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed [1]
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/barbican/tree/tools/pip-requires
It looks like the only item here not in the global requirements is Celery, which is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license.
https://github.com/celery/celery/blob/master/LICENSE
A notable point is this clause:
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
I'm not sure if we have other dependencies using this license already. It's also not clear how to interpret this when Python is always distributed as source. We can take this up on the legal-discuss mailing list.
My questions:
1) Do we already have dependencies that use this license? Do we have a master list somewhere?
I believe there was a plan some time ago to make up a master list of licenses of dependencies but I am not sure if that got off the ground.
2) How does the documentation clause apply for a Python project?
From the OpenStack Project's perspective, I would assume that clause is not triggered at all.
3) If we don't already have dependencies using this license, what do others thing about accepting it (or not) for OpenStack?
Seems clear to me that it should be acceptable. While the issue that led to this FAQ was specifically some 2-clause BSD-licensed code, rather than 3-clause BSD, see: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Incorporating_BSD.2FMIT_Licen...
The Apache Software Foundation considers 3-clause BSD to be a so-called Category A license, FWIW, and I would say it is commonly assumed that 3-clause BSD code can be used by or incorporated within Apache License 2.0 projects, subject to the point made in the above-referenced FAQ.
Ok, thanks for the clarification! -- Russell Bryant
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:11:53PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
The Apache Software Foundation considers 3-clause BSD to be a so-called Category A license
Curiously Rob Weir created this Apache legal-discuss JIRA issue several hours after I wrote that: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-185 However, unless I have the timing wrong, I believe that the ASF must have intended 3-clause BSD to be included in 'Category A', as I noted in my comment in that issue. - RF
participants (3)
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Richard Fontana
-
Russell Bryant