Open Stack

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:27:28AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> I think it's time we stepped back and considered all the angles here -
> not just "drop the CLA", "delete the copyright notices". What do we (the
> project) want? What are our values?
> 
> I'd suggest:
> 
>   - We want to be able to distribute OpenStack under the Apache License 
>     v2, so:
>      - All code to the project must be contributed under the ALv2
>      - We can incorporate BSD/MIT licensed code from other projects
>      - We can use LGPL, BSD, MIT, etc. licensed libraries; currently,
>        we're being conservative and not using GPL/AGPL libraries
> 
>   - There is no need for contributors to grant the foundation a special 
>     license.
> 
>   - We copy the kernel's Signed-off-by/DCO method of having all 
>     developers who contribute to a patch state they have the right to 
>     contribute the patch under ALv2
> 
>   - We consolidate all copyright notices into a single "copyright 
>     multiple authors" notice above the ALv2 header, making it clear the 
>     code is directly licensed by the authors under ALv2 without the 
>     foundation acting as an intermediary
> 
> This is just a strawman idea to draw some comments. What am I missing?

The one thing is my intuition that the lawyers for several of the
corporate members of the OpenStack Foundation, and lawyers for the
Foundation itself, would object to adoption of the Linux kernel-style
DCO. (Though perhaps mainly due to lack of familiarity with the
approach and some belief that the CLA system currently in use is a
best practice of some sort.) I myself think an unadulterated DCO
method is a fine idea, have said so before and feel confident in
saying that that would be Red Hat's official view.

As to the issue of handling copyright notices, that sounds fine to me
too and that part would address Rich Bowen's concerns.

 - RF