Wrong answer. The correct answer is all software in the Kolla repository should be ASL2.0 licensed. See legal list for a more thorough explanation based upon the historical discussions I’ve been through with the TC and BOD on this question. If it is GPLv3 licensed code, it should be implemented from scratch (IMO) by someone that has never seen the original work. I’d recommend Lei (jeffrey4l) for this, unless he has been tainted by viewing of the code in which case, ask me, and I’ll write it, since I don’t look at any GPLv3 code (intentionally).
The first file I examine in any repository is the LICENSE file – if its GPLv3, I look no further. I recommend everyone that has signed the CLA follow the same pattern to keep OpenStack in good legal health. Regards -steve From: Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][kolla] Ansible module with GPLv3 On 04/11/16 12:51, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-11-04 11:42:25 -0500 (-0500), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: [...] Kolla is licensed as Apache v2 all across the board today. To implement one of highly requested features we would need to develop so-called strategy plugin for ansible, and I can't see any reasonable way to do it without touching GPL v3 code. [...] [I am not a lawyer.] We just discussed this in #openstack-infra as well. Since Kolla is shelling out to an Ansible executable, it's not likely to count as being a derivative work of Ansible. Consequently, the Kolla plug-in imported by Ansible being GPLv3 while shipped in the same repo as Apache License 2.0 Kolla source code would simply be aggregation of software under distinct licenses. I agree that this would be an aggregation of software under distinct licenses, but one of those licenses is distinctly not allowed in OpenStack (we allow only ASLv2, MIT and BSD[1]). In fact IIUC anybody who tried to contribute a GPLv3 file would be inadvertently in breach of their CLA (the part where "You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license."). That said, it can't hurt to ask this again on legal-disc...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:legal-disc...@lists.openstack.org> where it's much more on-topic. Also replied there, but I'm mentioning here to make sure core reviewers are aware that they should -2 any patches containing GPL code with extreme prejudice. (Note that this applies only to OpenStack-proper - i.e. repos listed in the governance repo as part of the big tent. OpenStack Infra is specifically excluded in the policy.) cheers, Zane. [1] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
