Open Stack

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Ben Swartzlander <ben at swartzlander.org>
wrote:

> I started a thread [1] on the dev mailing list but wasn't able to get any
> helpful answers...
>
> The Manila project is creating a new repo for specs, and while looking at
> what other projects have done for specs repos, I could not figure out which
> license was being used. It seems that most specs repos (nova, cinder,
> neutron, contain a mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed stuff and CCBY (Creative
> Commons) licensed stuff.
>
> Some of these repos contain apparently-conflicting license declarations,
> with CCBY specified in the LICENSE file, but Apache 2.0 specified in the
> setup.cfg file.
>
> In all cases, individual files contain their own license declarations at
> the top and all of these repos contain some clearly Apache 2.0 licensed
> files (the python code in the repo) and some CCBY licensed files (the specs
> themselves).
>
> It seems unavoidable that we will have a similar situation in Manila, so
> I'm trying to figure out what to do at the top level for the LICENSE file
> and what license to point to in setup.cfg. Is there a way to explain to
> users that the project contains a mixture of 2 licenses? Is that acceptable
> or desirable?
>

​Based on a previous discussion, CC-BY should be used for specs:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html

​Using Apache 2.0 for python code in the repo is fine.​  The license file
can just explain the use of 2 licenses.

-- 
Russell Bryant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/attachments/20160509/6b8869c2/attachment.html>