Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> Adding back legal-discuss as while there were some tangential issues
> around infra being discussed I believe my core question/concern is most
> definitely a legal one.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>
> > To: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at gmail.com>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle at gmail.com>
> > > To: openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:36:07 +0100
> > > > From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com>
> > > > To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano at openstack.org>,
> > > >         openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] Licensing of documentation
> > > > Message-ID: <55092AE7.6040207 at suse.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> > > >
> > > > On 03/17/2015 07:12 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > > > > The conversation has definitely drifted off-topic now :) but I
> think
> > > > > it's worth responding here (and eventually move to infra, where it
> > > > > should continue)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:57 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > > > >> Once we can safely migrate review.openstack.org to
> > > > >> authenticate against the same openstackid.org identity provider
> as
> > > > >> www.openstack.org uses, this should become much simpler again
> since
> > > > >> we'll have a way to force contributors to sign up for a foundation
> > > > >> account (though they'll no longer need to fill out the foundation
> > > > >> membership form when doing so).
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, stop using Launchpad and use openstackid.org globally is
> the
> > > > > last step we need to accomplish before we can decouple individual
> > > > > memberships from commit rights. I think we already have all the
> basic
> > > > > tools in place to build the list of voters, we need to start
> thinking
> > > > > about moving gerrit to use openstackid.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, to go back to licensing docs:
> > > > >
> > > > > what's the status of licensing for the OpenStack upstream
> > > > > documentation?
> > > > >
> > > > > (I can wait for Anne to come back from holiday if she's the only
> one
> > > > > who
> > > > > can answer this question).
> > > >
> > > > **************************
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sigh, that's not good. I don't want to be the only one who knows this.
> :)
> > >
> > > Technically the docs are still Apache 2.0 because there is no
> indicator to
> > > a docs contributor that it would be licensed any other way. (To me,
> this is
> > > why we either change the current design or get the transfer underway.)
> >
> > What indicator does a contributor get that their contributions are
> licensed
> > under Apache 2.0 today? Are we just talking about the marks on the
> rendered
> > output (that is, after they already contributed)?
> >
> > > Nick Chase did a lot of legwork a few years back looking into what the
> > > legal need is to get all docs licensed cc-by, and we think we need to
> have
> > > all current contributors indicate in writing (somehow) that they
> license
> > > the content cc-by. Then the CLA needs to either change or we need a
> 2nd CLA
> > > for docs contributions.
> >
> > Are we saying here that current contributors to the project have not
> signed
> > the CLA? I know this is potentially the case for authors who contributed
> to
> > books written in sprints using external tools (Ops Guide, Design Arch
> Guide)
> > but ultimately to get into e.g. openstack-manuals someone who has signed
> the
> > CLA has to contribute the patch(es) and in doing so grants copyright to
> the
> > "Project Manager" no? Maybe I am missing something but I don't understand
> > why we would need a second CLA here as the existing one doesn't specify a
> > license either, yet isn't it the mechanism we're using to distribute
> using
> > Apache 2.0 today?
> >
> > > The desired outcomes are:
> > > - every reader knows the license
> > > - all people (corporate contributors, publishers) know if and how to
> reuse
> > > the docs
> >
> > To be honest from previous discussions (which I believe kicked off Nick's
> > expedition) I thought we had this nailed but now I'm more confused than
> when
> > we started as it seems like we remain in complete limbo on this.
> Currently
> > we have:
> >
> > - Some books reporting ASL 2.0: E.g.
> > http://docs.openstack.org/high-availability-guide/content/
> > - Some books reporting CC-BY-SA: E.g.
> > http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ops/content/
> > - Some books reporting BOTH: E.g.
> > http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
> >
> > ...and I have no idea which ones are correct. The earlier replies seemed
> to
> > indicate we should be displaying both, but more recent ones seem to
> indicate
> > we should be only displaying ASL 2.0. So in both my roles, as a
> downstream
> > and as a contributor I can now count myself as thoroughly confused.
> >
>

So sorry Steve, it _is_ confusing.

I'll give this my full attention when I'm back next week. Feel free to get
more clarification here though! It's completely possible I'm not
remembering everything.

Anne


> > -Steve
> >
> > > - every contributor knows their rights when they write upstream docs
> > > - contributors are not held liable if the docs are wrong
> > > - use of the OpenStack brand and logo still go through normal brand
> > > guidelines
> > >
> > > That's all I can think of for now. Let me know if there are additional
> > > questions or difference in opinion on the outcomes we need.
> > >
> > > Anne
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OpenStack-docs mailing list
> > > OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Gordon, RHCE
> > Sr. Technical Product Manager,
> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-docs mailing list
> > OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
> >
>
> --
> Steve Gordon, RHCE
> Sr. Technical Product Manager,
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20150318/1676f5af/attachment.html>