Open Stack

On 09/15/2014 10:25 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>> ________________________________________
>> 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?

It's a per-project config option. If you are a stackforge project, you
can chose to not enforce the CLA. However, if you are a stackforge
project that has aspirations to becoming an OpenStack project, not
having CLA enforcement on while on stackforge could make things sticky
for that.

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