Open Stack

On 09/07/15 15:24, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Thanks that clears it up.  I parse that statement a bit differently you
> have.  Its the ³so+² or intent of the clause where I get hung up.  The so
> could be achieved I suspect without the direct requirement of ASL2.0.
> Technically the technical committee doesn¹t have a TC release anymore
> either, as far as I understand.  But IANAL :)

That's incorrect, the by-laws require a TC Approved Release and the TC 
has defined one. Previously the equivalent was the integrated release; 
since the by-laws change the TC has adopted a separate tag to clearly 
define what the TC Approved Release is (currently it's the same subset 
of projects that were previously in the integrated release).

> In the Kolla case if we had intended to use #3, we would not be able to
> apply for big tent by your analysis successfully because we would run into
> the clause outlined in my original email.

I don't believe that follows. The by-laws require only that anything in 
the TC Approved Release be distributed under the ASL. That said, it is 
completely up to the TC which projects to accept into OpenStack, and it 
would be well within its rights to reject one that e.g. could never be 
added to the Approved Release because of an incompatible license.

> Since we are not using method
> #3, but have rolled our own implementation which is ASL, we are good to go
> on that clause of the new project rules.

Indeed.

cheers,
Zane.

> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> On 7/9/15, 9:37 AM, "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear, the GPLv3 does not require modification for its terms
>> to apply. The terms of the GPLv3 apply upon distribution of the code.
>> The GPLv3 licensed code could not be part of the Technical Committee
>> Approved Release because Section 7.2 of the Restated Bylaws provides
>> that: "The Foundation shall distribute the software in the Technical
>> Committee Approved Release under the Apache License 2.0 unless changed as
>> provided in Section 9.1" so the requirement of the use of the Apache 2.0
>> license is not limited to code which is eligible for trademark use. Such
>> code, Trademark Designated OpenStack Software, is designated by the Board
>> and is a subset of the Technical Committee Approved Release.
>>
>> I remember a Board discussion about the use of copyleft licenses in
>> dependencies and I think that the Board was generally against it, but I
>> don't think that a decision was reached. I think that a discussion on
>> this issue would be useful and I will discuss with Jonathan.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:rfontana at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:38 PM
>> To: Stefano Maffulli
>> Cc: legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] Licensing options for new project (Kolla)
>> entering big tent
>>
>> 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-pr
>>>> ojects-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.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-discuss mailing list
>> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>
>> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or
>> legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient,
>> you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure,
>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of
>> its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>> communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies
>> of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-discuss mailing list
>> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-discuss mailing list
> legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
>