Open Stack

>________________________________________
>From: Jeremy Stanley [fungi at yuggoth.org]
>Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 2:05 PM
>
>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?

Hmm, my understanding was that branches are not accepted without a signed
ICLA. Is that not the default case?

>> 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?

IANAL, so it could very well be. I'll talk with our contributors about that. 

>> 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.

Yep, sounds like further opinion is needed. 

>> 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.

That's definitely interesting. I'll follow up. 

I gave [1] a read, which was helpful. But it's not definitive in any way.

>Jeremy Stanley
 
Thanks for the feedback Jeremy. This could be a great help.

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAndItsCLA

>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-Infra mailing list
>OpenStack-Infra at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra