[legal-discuss] Licensing options for new project (Kolla) entering big tent

Richard Fontana rfontana at redhat.com
Wed Jul 8 19:37:58 UTC 2015

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 12:14:31PM -0700, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > I asked the TC if this approach would be in violation of the 
> > governance repository here: 
> > https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/new-projects-requirements.rst
> [...]
> >  From the requirements " * Project must have no library dependencies 
> > which effectively restrict how the project may be distributed or 
> > deployed"
> 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.

I agree. If "effectively restrict[s] how the project may be
distributed or deployed" was meant to allude to things like GPLv3 that
is not obvious.


More information about the legal-discuss mailing list