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

Richard Fontana rfontana at redhat.com
Thu Jul 9 20:34:47 UTC 2015

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:08:16PM -0400, Zane Bitter wrote:
> 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.

That might help explain the requirement at

"Project must have no library dependencies which effectively restrict
how the project may be distributed or deployed"

but it should then be taken to mean "Project must have no library
dependencies which effectively prevent the project from being
distributed under the Apache License 2.0" (I'll assume that makes
sense in a given context).

That being so, I am not sure I understand this one

"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)"

Because, given that the OpenStack Foundation uses CLAs that give it
the power to license out everything under the Apache License, why does
it matter whether the proposed project is initially under an open
source license that is not the Apache License?

For example, suppose a new official OpenStack project is under the
GPL. What's the obstacle to it later being included in the TC Approved
Release? All that's necessary is for the Foundation to relicense it
under the Apache License. Or is the concern that a (say) GPL-licensed
project might have had a pre-OpenStack history including contributions
from individuals or entities that are not CLA signatories?

Essentially I am asking - how could it be that a project could never
be added to the Approved Release because of an incompatible license?


More information about the legal-discuss mailing list