Make it clear that code outside plugins/ can have other free software licenses as well

[felixfontein]

SUMMARY

Right now, the rules state that "[a]ll other code must be under the GPL-3.0-or-later". From the explanation it is clear that this sentence is about all other code in plugins/, but it is not formulated that way.

The current formulation implies for example that all unit tests, helper scripts, or code files included in roles, playbooks, or integration tests must be licensed under GPLv3+. Especially for unit tests this can be problematic; for example community.docker now vendors some code from Docker SDK for Python (Apache 2.0 licensed) including unit tests for that code. The unit tests are also licensed under Apache 2.0, but this would violate a strict interpretation of the inclusion requirements.

This PR proposes an improved formulation that makes it clear that other code outside plugins/ can also use other licenses.

(Ref: ansible-collections/community.docker#433 (comment))

ISSUE TYPE

• Bugfix Pull Request
• Docs Pull Request

COMPONENT NAME

inclusion requirements

[gotmax23]

I agree with the premise of this change. Thank you for proposing it, @felixfontein! I think All other code should be clarified to something like All other plugins and then the order of rows 3 and 4 should be switched.

[felixfontein]

I agree with the premise of this change. Thank you for proposing it, @felixfontein! I think All other code should be clarified to something like All other plugins and then the order of rows 3 and 4 should be switched.

I implemented that in 3c36d09.

[gotmax23]

What is the process for getting this approved? Can the SC just vote on it or does it have to go through legal?

[felixfontein]

What is the process for getting this approved? Can the SC just vote on it or does it have to go through legal?

I think a SC vote suffices, since this doesn't really change much. (Assuming nobody from SC disagrees and asks for a review by RH legal... I really don't think that will happen though.)

[gotmax23]

Besides that one other change, this looks good to me.

[mattclay]

Since unit tests import modules, plugins or ansible-core code, it's probably worth clarifying that.

[repeating since my original statement was attached to a now hidden comment]

[samccann]

LGTM

[felixfontein]

Any more comments? Or should we start voting on the current state?

[felixfontein]

There is now an active vote on this topic: ansible-community/community-topics#142

[felixfontein]

(I rebased after #216 was merged, no content changes.)

[Andersson007]

@felixfontein thanks for the clarifications!
I have 2 questions:

1. Do i understand correctly that if a collection is fully licensed with a GPL compatible license and contains, say, plugins/actions/.. or anything else besides modules and module_utils in the plugins directory, the maintainers must re-license it with GPLv3+, otherwise we can't include/have such a collection included?
2. Should we use uppercase modal verbs as we do in other paragraphs?

Thanks

[felixfontein]

1. Do i understand correctly that if a collection is fully licensed with a GPL compatible license and contains, say, `plugins/actions/..` or anything else besides `modules` and `module_utils` in the `plugins` directory, the maintainers must re-license it with GPLv3+, otherwise we can't include/have such a collection included?

Yes. But that's not related to including the collection into Ansible, it's a result of the GPL already. Action plugins (and other plugin types, except a few of them) import code from ansible-core, and thus these plugins must be licensed under GPLv3 as well.

[felixfontein]

Should we use uppercase modal verbs as we do in other paragraphs?

Hmmm, I'm not sure whether this is a good idea to change since the vote already started.

[Andersson007]

Should we use uppercase modal verbs as we do in other paragraphs?

Hmmm, I'm not sure whether this is a good idea to change since the vote already started.

It doesn't change the meaning, just makes it a bit more recognizable (anyway it's not an obstacle to merge it as-is and we can do it later in another PR). Let's continue without changing it here

[felixfontein]

This PR has been approved, see ansible-community/community-topics#123 (comment).

[felixfontein]

Thanks everyone! :)