Open Stack

I am not sure I understand your statement. The intention of the bylaws is clear, the Technical Committee Approved Release needs to be licensed under ASL2.0.  

I am enclosing the latest version of the bylaws. Section 4.1(b) has the definition of Technical Committee Approved Release.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Dake (stdake) [mailto:stdake at cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Radcliffe, Mark; Richard Fontana; Stefano Maffulli
Cc: legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org; sam at yaple.net
Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] Licensing options for new project (Kolla) entering big tent

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 :)

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.  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.

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-p
>> > r
>> > 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

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 233015232-v31-OpenStackFoundation Bylaws FINAL (as amended September 7, ....doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 207872 bytes
Desc: 233015232-v31-OpenStackFoundation Bylaws FINAL (as amended September 7, ....doc
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20150709/241a0716/attachment-0001.doc>