[legal-discuss] Licensing options for new project (Kolla) entering big tent
stefano at openstack.org
Wed Jul 8 19:14:31 UTC 2015
On 07/07/2015 07:20 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> We use a set of libraries only available in Ansible v2.0. Shade 
> ASL2.0 uses these Ansible python libraries  licensed under a
> GPLv3 license. We use Shade in Kolla directly. We had planned to
> fork these libraries in  and cherry-pick only the modules we
> really need until Ansible 2.0 is available.
Based on the conversation on IRC, it's the other way around: Ansible
core modules for OpenStack use Shade. It's the Ansible code, distributed
under GPLv3 that consumes ASLv2 functions offered by Shade.
Based on the recent message by Sam Yaple, the issue with Kolla may have
been resolved technically and the discussion is more generally about the
meaning of new-projects-requirements.
> I asked the TC if this approach would be in violation of the
> governance repository here:
> From the requirements " * Project must have no library dependencies
> which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed or
I don't think that this requirement line you quote is preventing GPLv3
code in OpenStack because the GNU GPLv3 (and its predecessor v2) doesn't
restrict how the code is distributed or deployed. The license provisions
kick in when code is modified *and* is distributed with such modifications.
The bullet before the one you quoted says:
* The proposed project uses an open source license (preferably the
Apache v2.0 license, since it is necessary if the project wants to be
used in an OpenStack trademark program)
This to me means that code can be put under the /openstack/ namespace in
any open source approved license. Using Apache SL v2 will make it
possible to be legally distributed by the OpenStack Foundation as part
of the OpenStack 'core' definition.
If the intention of the TC requirements is to prevent strong copyleft
licenses in openstack/ namespace maybe the bullets needs to be clarified.
It's worth reminding that the GPLv3 allows for additional permissions to
be granted downstream (see this historic article
http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html for more details, and
from the GPLv3 FAQ, like
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense), so one
could ask to render the GPLv3 code into a Lesser GPLv3 for inclusion in
PS: IANAL, TINLA
More information about the legal-discuss