Open Stack

Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2018-08-13 19:24:35 +0000:
> On 2018-08-13 21:23:53 +0300 (+0300), mail at clusums.eu wrote:
> > DMTF came back and they were expecting that CC BY would be
> > sufficient for including files in sushy repo. While at the moment
> > we don't plan to include the files, what would be necessary to
> > determine if in future CC BY would allow to include the files in
> > sushy repo?
> [...]
> 
> Because sushy is an official OpenStack Ironic deliverable, the
> OpenStack Technical Committee considers matters like this on a
> case-by-case basis with the help of the OpenStack Foundation legal
> counsel as mentioned in the last sentence here:
> 
>     https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html
> 
> Though in the case of CC-BY3 we already have some precedent for
> including documentation source under this license in repositories
> which are primarily ASL2, for example in the oslo.messaging
> repository you can find some:
> 
>     https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/oslo.messaging/tree/doc/source/contributor/supported-messaging-drivers.rst?id=818fd68
> 
> Note that at their October 15, 2012 meeting the OpenStack Foundation
> Board of Directors resolved that the Creative Commons CC-BY license
> was approved for documentation and similar site content:
> 
>     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation.
> 
> As such the vast majority of our documentation repositories are
> already blanket CC-BY3 (with the exception of inline software source
> code examples and associated build tooling) as are bits of
> documentation in software source code repositories (e.g.
> oslo.messaging), so hopefully it wouldn't need a significant amount
> of deliberation to treat embedded data copies in a similar fashion.

Given that we're talking about data, not code, that the Redfish
folks seem to want to allow this sort of use, that we have several
precedents, and that (as Allison points out) the Apache foundation
considers CC-BY compatible as long as there is "prominent notice
of the different licensing for any files under CC BY" I don't really
see a problem.

Does anyone think there is any reason not to let the Sushy team go ahead
and include the file, as planned?

Doug