Open Stack

Chris, thank you for the feedback.

I think it comes from the way how Apache 2.0 license needs to get applied, with a line like described here – [0].
> Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

But the concern is valid, and I have submitted a change to get it changed to "Airship Team” – [1].

[0] https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply <https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply>
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689212/ <https://review.opendev.org/#/c/689212/>

Best regards,
— Roman Gorshunov

> On 17 Oct 2019, at 18:10, Chris Morgan <mihalis68 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I notice that although the code is released under the Apache license, looking at a conceivable real at-scale deployment one would need to read docs still marked as belonging to AT&T, for example
> 
> https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap <https://opendev.org/airship/treasuremap> links to
> https://airship-treasuremap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html <https://airship-treasuremap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html>
> 
> which is marked "© Copyright 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. Revision 93aed048."
> 
> I do not know if this is a problem, per se, but does not seem entirely openstack-like to me.
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org <mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org>> wrote:
> Hi TC members,
> 
> The Airship project will start its confirmation process with the OSF
> Board of Directors at the Board meeting[1] Tuesday next week. A
> draft of the slide deck[2] they plan to present is available for
> reference.
> 
> Per the confirmation guidelines[3], the OSF Board of directors will
> take into account the feedback from representative bodies of
> existing confirmed Open Infrastructure Projects (OpenStack, Zuul and
> Kata) when evaluating Airship for confirmation.
> 
> Particularly worth calling out, guideline #4 "Open collaboration"
> asserts the following:
> 
>     Project behaves as a good neighbor to other confirmed and pilot
>     projects.
> 
> If you (our community at large, not just TC members) have any
> observations/interactions with the Airship project which could serve
> as useful examples for how these projects do or do not meet this and
> other guidelines, please provide them on the etherpad[4] ASAP. If
> possible, include a citation with links to substantiate your
> feedback.
> 
> If a TC representative can assemble this feedback and send it to the
> Board (for example, to the foundation mailing list) for
> consideration before the meeting next week, that would be
> appreciated. Apologies for the short notice.
> 
> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2019-October/002800.html <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2019-October/002800.html>
> [2] https://www.airshipit.org/collateral/AirshipConfirmation-Review-for-the-OSF-Board.pdf <https://www.airshipit.org/collateral/AirshipConfirmation-Review-for-the-OSF-Board.pdf>
> [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/OSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines>
> [4] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-tc-airship-confirmation-feedback <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-tc-airship-confirmation-feedback>
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Stanley
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chris Morgan <mihalis68 at gmail.com <mailto:mihalis68 at gmail.com>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20191017/4ad61f57/attachment-0001.html>