Open Stack

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:06 AM Emma Gordon (projectcalico.org) <
emma at projectcalico.org> wrote:

>  If fuel plugin code is checked into a stackforge repository (as
> suggested in the fuel plugin wiki
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel/Plugins#Repo), who owns that code?
>

Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer this not legal advice.

The "authors" own the work (code) according local assignment rules and the
Berne convention. This would be treated the same as any other work. The
Authors can decide what rights they may want people with regards to
copy-right (and other intellectual property rights), hence the licenses
that we pass around with opensource projects to clarify the author(s)
intent. Additional "authors" or contributors to the work can further
describe their own license on their part of the work (as they hold their
own copyright) but these are usually not accepted by the maintainers of a
work.

To that end, you don't have to use the Apache 2.0 License on your plugin if
you don't desire it. It could however cause the plugin to see limited use.
The point of plugins is that this in your control.

I would also point out that your plugin could easily contain multiple
licenses depending on what you are including. I'm working on a way to
easily identify this with the plugins metadata. This can occur multiple
ways as there are many parts in a plugin.

a) there is the data describing how the plugin interacts with fuel. All of
this data is highly structured and has little IP (usually the wording you
use for the text fields is it)

b) any configuration management code you use to apply the plugin and its
settings. This could include your pure code, or even multiple works from
others, for example puppet modules.

c) Packages that you need to include as part of the plugin package to
ensure they can be found. These could each have their own license and even
carry GPL licensed parts.

In these cases I'd recommend adding a LICENSES file describing the
locations where items may change license (similar to any other programs
Open Source Notice file.) from what ever is written on in the "license"
string in the plugin metadata.yaml. As I noted above, I'm working to get
this incorporated into the data we present on the plugins repo page.
(Likely by pointing to this file in the metadata, but it's not settled yet)


> Is there a contributor license agreement to sign? (For example,
> contributors to OpenStack would sign this
> https://review.openstack.org/static/cla.html)
>
The Openstack CLA is not required for Fuel, and is not obligatory. You
again have control here and simply configure your gerrit settings for your
project as you see fit.

> Thanks,
>
> Emma
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150519/c1e4cc58/attachment.html>