Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:13:44PM -0400, Nick Chase wrote:
> > As far as what I remember about the previous expedition:
> >
> > In order for us to officially change the license, we needed to find a
> way to:
> >
> > a)  Add the new license to the overall CLA and get everyone to sign it
>
> I don't understand this part -- why would the CLA need to specify what
> the outbound documentation license is? On the software side, the CLA
> does not specify that code will be licensed under the Apache
> License. What constrains the Foundation to distributing CLA-licensed
> code under the Apache License is the bylaws IP policy, not anything in
> the CLA itself.
>

Got it, thanks for clarifying. I should not try to understand nor explain
anything while on vacation. :)

My misunderstanding is around "what mechanism do contributors have to
understand how their contribution is licensed?"

I mistakenly thought the CLA had words to explain that. I've read it with
that need in mind, and indeed, it does not specify licensing.

Anne


>
> Richard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20150318/d1c7672e/attachment-0001.html>