Add Legal Issues FAQ
Bring the wiki page content under version control and incorporate it into the Project Team Guide. Change-Id: Ieb66c48aa420b9c3920e503376f260456dff3ad9
This commit is contained in:
Brian Rosmaita
parent
c3eca383d8
commit
32eea0cf49
@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Contents:
|
||||
glossary
|
||||
deprecation
|
||||
technical-guides/index
|
||||
legal-issues-faq
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Indices and tables
|
||||
|
||||
189
doc/source/legal-issues-faq.rst
Normal file
189
doc/source/legal-issues-faq.rst
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
|
||||
================
|
||||
Legal Issues FAQ
|
||||
================
|
||||
|
||||
The `legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss>`_
|
||||
mailing list is a forum for questions that have a legal aspect to them. These
|
||||
questions may concern (for example) licensing, third party packages,
|
||||
contributor agreement questions and trademark issues. The list will be used to
|
||||
build into an ad-hoc knowledge base in the form of this FAQ about those thorny
|
||||
legal issues that most commonly affect the OpenStack project.
|
||||
|
||||
Opinions documented here do not constitute legal advice from the OpenStack
|
||||
Foundation or anyone else.
|
||||
|
||||
Frequently Asked Questions
|
||||
==========================
|
||||
|
||||
.. contents::
|
||||
:depth: 1
|
||||
:local:
|
||||
:backlinks: none
|
||||
|
||||
NOTICE Files
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Should we include NOTICE files in OpenStack projects?
|
||||
|
||||
A: If a NOTICE file exists in a project, the Apache License requires that
|
||||
derivative works include the attribution notices from the file. This could be
|
||||
helpful for a number of purposes - (a) ensuring an attribution to the OpenStack
|
||||
project gets included in derivative works and (b) helping distributors of
|
||||
derivative works to include any required attribution notices for third party
|
||||
code included in the project. However, neither of these issues are deemed
|
||||
significant or important enough to warrant the cost of maintaining the files or
|
||||
requiring distributors to include an OpenStack project attribution notice.
|
||||
|
||||
For the full background, `see this thread
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2013-April/thread.html#0>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _incorporating:
|
||||
|
||||
Incorporating BSD/MIT Licensed Code
|
||||
-----------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: If we include BSD or MIT licensed code in an OpenStack project, how best
|
||||
should we comply with the terms of the license?
|
||||
|
||||
A: The `2 core clauses in the BSD license
|
||||
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29>`_
|
||||
make some demands about the retention of copyright notices, the license and
|
||||
disclaimers in both source and binary distributions of the code. The
|
||||
`MIT license
|
||||
<http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>`_
|
||||
contains similar requirements. Probably the easiest thing to do when
|
||||
incorporating BSD or MIT licensed code is to copy the copyright/license header
|
||||
from the source file into the destination file, as well as copying the
|
||||
copyright notice, license and disclaimer into the toplevel LICENSE file with a
|
||||
brief explanation of which code is under that license.
|
||||
|
||||
For the full background, `see this email
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2013-April/000002.html>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright Headers
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Generally speaking, what's the idea with copyright headers in source files
|
||||
and what should be included in them?
|
||||
|
||||
A: Copyright notices are not required in order to create or protect your
|
||||
copyright rights, but they may nonetheless be useful. (Also, copyright notices
|
||||
from code taken from outside of OpenStack will typically
|
||||
:ref:`need to be preserved <incorporating>`
|
||||
as a requirement of the license of that external code.) We have some overall
|
||||
copyright guidance on this page, and discussions about copyright headers in
|
||||
source files continue on mailing lists. In general,
|
||||
|
||||
* All references to "OpenStack LLC" can be changed to "OpenStack Foundation"
|
||||
because copyrights held by OpenStack LLC were transferred to the Foundation
|
||||
when the new entity was created. (However, note that in some cases "OpenStack
|
||||
LLC" or "OpenStack Foundation" appear to have been included in copyright
|
||||
notices `in error
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2013-April/000010.html>`_
|
||||
by contributors not employed by Rackspace or the Foundation at the relevant
|
||||
time period.)
|
||||
|
||||
* If the content has been substantially updated in 2013, add the year to the
|
||||
change.
|
||||
|
||||
* Always keep the license in the header.
|
||||
|
||||
* We do not yet have guidance for when to add or remove a copyright header in
|
||||
source files.
|
||||
|
||||
* Reviews of copyright headers may vary across projects.
|
||||
|
||||
* For documentation, refer to `Documentation/Copyright
|
||||
<https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/Copyright>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the combination of our use of a CLA and per-file copyright notices
|
||||
from individuals or companies may be creating a confusing
|
||||
`duplicative licensing situation
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-January/000150.html>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Should **"All rights reserved"** follow a copyright notice?
|
||||
|
||||
A: It is not necessary to follow a copyright notice with the words "All rights
|
||||
reserved". While it is harmless, some people regard "All rights reserved" as
|
||||
being inappropriate in conjunction with an open source license grant. Therefore
|
||||
it is recommended that developers not include "All rights reserved" in
|
||||
copyright headers.
|
||||
|
||||
Copyright Notices in Blueprints
|
||||
-------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Should I include a copyright notice in a blueprint?
|
||||
|
||||
A: `No
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2013-May/000039.html>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
OpenStack Foundation Copyright Headers
|
||||
--------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Should I Include an OpenStack Foundation copyright header in my code?
|
||||
|
||||
A: **No**, unless you are an employee or contractor of the OpenStack
|
||||
Foundation. Most existing OpenStack Foundation copyright headers you see in
|
||||
OpenStack code are likely associated with code from Rackspace developers before
|
||||
the OpenStack Foundation existed when OpenStack LLC was a wholly owned
|
||||
subsidiary of Rackspace. Once the foundation was formed, all OpenStack LLC
|
||||
assets (including copyrights) were transferred to the foundation and the
|
||||
copyright headers were updated. It's likely the only valid reason for OpenStack
|
||||
Foundation copyright notices on new code these days is where the code was
|
||||
authored by an employee or contractor of the foundation.
|
||||
|
||||
For the full background, `consult this thread
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2013-April/thread.html#9>`_.
|
||||
|
||||
New Project Names
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: What sort of things should I bear in mind when choosing a new project name?
|
||||
|
||||
A: Some of the non-Apache-specific material in the Apache Software Foundation's
|
||||
guidelines `Choosing names for ASF projects
|
||||
<http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html>`_
|
||||
may be helpful. See also the last
|
||||
paragraph of `section 5.1
|
||||
<https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1-600005>`_
|
||||
of SFLC's *A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects*.
|
||||
|
||||
A few categories that are best avoided when coming up with a non-generic
|
||||
project name are: surnames, ubiquitous words, famous trademarks in other
|
||||
fields, and references to famous things (e.g., superheroes, car names, movie
|
||||
characters, famous people).
|
||||
|
||||
Legal Concerns Over Project Names
|
||||
---------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: I am concerned that there may be legal issues around an existing OpenStack
|
||||
project name. What should I do?
|
||||
|
||||
A: FIXME
|
||||
|
||||
Licensing of library dependencies
|
||||
---------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Is it OK for OpenStack Projects to use GPL or AGPL libraries?
|
||||
|
||||
A: No, see the `Licensing requirements
|
||||
<http://governance.openstack.org/reference/licensing.html>`_
|
||||
page.
|
||||
|
||||
.. note::
|
||||
|
||||
This question is about GPL libraries. LGPL libraries would not require
|
||||
such discussion.
|
||||
|
||||
Licensing of non-library dependencies
|
||||
-------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Q: Is it OK for OpenStack Projects to require AGPLv3 licensed technologies for
|
||||
production deployment?
|
||||
|
||||
A: This issue has come up in the context of Ceilometer and Marconi requiring
|
||||
MongoDB. The concern has been raised that some users will be unwilling to
|
||||
deploy any AGPLv3 technologies, but we're still trying to understand those
|
||||
concerns in detail. See `this thread
|
||||
<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/thread.html#174>`_.
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user