Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 04:31:03PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Actually there's a good argument the CLA *should* specify this, so I
didn't mean to suggest it is a bad idea. (That would make the CLA
somewhat more like the DCO in some respects.)

RF