Open Stack

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 04:43:50PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> In that vein, I'd really like to see this simplified:
> 
>   Article VIII, Section 1. Apache License and CLA. The Project shall not
>   accept contributions of software code unless such contribution is made
>   on the terms of the Apache 2.0 license, and the contributor has
>   executed the applicable Contributor License Agreement attached as
>   Appendix 4. The Board may adopt additional contributor license
>   agreements as may be appropriate to secure a license on the same terms
>   as stated in the Contributor License Agreements attached on Appendix 4
>   from entities other than those covered by those Contributor License
>   Agreements, or by contributors in non -United States jurisdictions.
> 
> To something like:
> 
>   Article VIII, Section 1. Apache License. The Project shall only accept
>   contributions of software code where such contribution is made under 
>   the terms of the Apache License 2.0. The Board may adopt whatever 
>   contribution process it deems necessary to ensure the correct 
>   licensing of contributions.
> 
> i.e. please let's not make it so difficult to move from the CLA process
> to something like the kernel's Signed-off-by process as discussed
> previously:
[...]
> To me, it's a perfect example of what we should omit from the bylaws.
> Yes, by all means require the Apache License, but why require a CLA?
> Especially since changing the clause invokes this:
> 
>   (i) A motion to amend Article VIII (Intellectual Property Policy)
>   shall be adopted only if approved by each of the following: (A) a
>   two-thirds (2/3)vote of the Platinum Membership, (B) a two-thirds
>   (2/3) vote of the Gold Membership, and (C) a majority vote of the
>   Individual Membership in which at least twenty five percent (25%) of
>   the Individual Membership participates.

I agree entirely (in fact, I think that was me you quoted in what I
snipped :). Note: I am serving on the drafting committee for the
OpenStack Foundation governance documents as Red Hat's representative,
and have made essentially the same suggestion to that committee.

A partial per-class supermajority requirement to change an outbound
project license makes some sense, or at least is fairly harmless (as
it mirrors the conservatism around outbound licensing that typically
exists naturally for projects). 

But a partial per-class supermajority requirement to change something
like a *CLA*, baked into the *bylaws*?  This is a very unwise
policy. Speaking from the benefit of several years of experience as
Red Hat's open source lawyer, it is frequently the case that
modifications and adjustments to contributor agreements and
contribution policies are necessary and desirable. The choice of a
particular CLA does not rise to the level of what's so fundamental as
to be sensible to specify in the Foundation's bylaws with amendments
intentionally made difficult.



Richard Fontana
Open Source Licensing & Patent Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.