Open Stack

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_Licensed_Code
> 
> 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