Open Stack

On 2014-09-15 16:47:13 +0000 (+0000), Sandy Walsh wrote:
> It's the Corporate CLA that's needed. The companies that want to
> contribute have already vetted and signed the CCLA. They need
> protection in case someone contributes something nasty.
> Accidentally or intentionally.
[...]

Hopefully you understand that Gerrit does not in any way enforce the
CCLA for any projects, official or otherwise?

> If we can make a great widget and our license is suitably
> permissive, is there a reason we should need inclusion?

Not at all. It was merely the only reason I could conceive for you
wanting to impose the ICLA on your contributors. In fact it sounds
like you may have done so due to a misunderstanding?

> It would let us continue developing our software as we are
> currently. Business as usual. And it would protect the
> contributing companies just as the CCLA does today. Getting these
> companies to vet and sign another CCLA would be very hard to do.
> And us getting a new CCLA/ICLA in place would be impossible.

I believe this may be a giant error in interpretation of the
document, and I strongly encourage you to bring it up on the
legal-discuss at lists.openstack.org mailing list since yours may not
be the only project making such assumptions.

> We are OpenStack users and an OpenStack focused project. We're just
> trying to do it with minimum bureaucracy.

In this case CLA bureaucracy is imposed on official OpenStack
projects due to foundation bylaws. There should be no need to
inflict this on other projects which are not an official part of
OpenStack itself and have no intention of becoming so, and the
wording therein may not be providing any protection to unofficial
projects and their contributors whatsoever.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley