Open Stack

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:07:34PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-05-06 10:39:45 -0400 (-0400), Richard Fontana wrote:
> [...]
> > However it is not the case that the OpenStack CLAs "simply reinforce
> > the OpenStack Foundation's ability to continue to redistribute the
> > software under the Apache License by affirming that the terms of the
> > license are applied correctly and intentionally". That is what the
> > DCO, or a hypothetical differently-drafted CLA, would do; the
> > OpenStack CLAs are broader license grants to the OpenStack Foundation.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I tried to figure out how to word
> that, but it's still not entirely clear to me _what_ additional
> broadness is granted by the OpenStack Foundation ICLA. I'd love it
> if we had an FAQ with a summary of that additional broadness we
> could point people to, 

It's not a huge difference, but I think it is important for developers
to understand the CLA is not an open source license nor does it
incorporate an open source license. (Not just developers, as I've
encountered some confusion on this point among lawyers, but we don't
ask noncontributor lawyers to sign the ICLA, while we are still asking
individual developers to sign the ICLA.)

The issue is touched upon here
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAndItsCLA#Relationship_to_the_Apache_License
(That is a wiki page I worked on with markmc last year. It is
admittedly a piece of advocacy and contains some assertions that have
been disputed by at least one person.)

> though I gather lawyers are generally against
> the idea of summaries of legal agreements since they would counter
> that the agreement itself is already as summarized as it can be
> (which doesn't help when it takes a lawyer to interpret and explain
> it every time the question comes up).

I don't think that's a real problem in this context. I think you might
find some disagreement on how exactly the CLAs differ from the Apache
License, and maybe some reluctance to acknowledge that
disagreement. It should be beyond dispute that they are different
licenses, however.

RF