[Pulp-dev] PUP5 -- Adopting the "Common Cure Rights Commitment" for Pulp Core

Fri Jun 1 12:54:16 UTC 2018

+1

Dana Walker

Associate Software Engineer

Red Hat

<https://www.redhat.com>
<https://red.ht/sig>

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> +0
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Voting closes June 2nd.
>>
>> I have read this through and appreciate @richardfontana's
>> response/explanation to questions: https://github.com/pulp/pups/p
>> ull/9#issuecomment-393317027
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Through feedback on the issue and discussion in #pulp-dev, one small
>>>> language revision [0] was added to PUP5 [1]. I believe we are ready to call
>>>> a vote.
>>>>
>>>> Voting for PUP5 is open and will close on June 2nd. Please respond with
>>>> your vote to this thread if you feel so inclined (lazy consensus). Barring
>>>> any -1's cast, PUP5 will be merged on June 4th.
>>>>
>>>> [0]: https://github.com/richardfontana/pups/commit/99fcd35e1cc396
>>>> a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333
>>>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @ipanova, I think of the core team as only maintaining pulp/pulp and
>>>>> pulp/devel so I limit the scope of this to those repos only. I think
>>>>> pulp_rpm (or any plugin) could adopt the CCRC without a PUP by following
>>>>> the "Displaying the CRCC section
>>>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files#diff-e883d39d60672a684862d3cef971e94eR106>"
>>>>> in their own repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> @dawalker, relicensing to GPLv3 is an alternative. It's not a bad
>>>>> option, but it would be more complicated. Since every committer with even a
>>>>> single line of current code is a copyright holder of the codebase, and it
>>>>> would require a 100% signoff from all copyright holders, in practice this
>>>>> can be difficult. Also someone may not even use that email anymore so it
>>>>> may not even be possible. I haven't assessed how many Pulp3 committers we
>>>>> have currently for the Pulp3 codebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was recently part of a relicensing which failed
>>>>> <https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25>, but
>>>>> it shows what the process looks like:  https://github.com/python-bugz
>>>>> illa/python-bugzilla/issues/25 If someone wants to champion switching
>>>>> to GPLv3 and create an issue like that and get all the signoffs I'm not
>>>>> opposed to relicensing to GPLv3 instead of adopting the CRCC.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than the noted point that it takes time, is there any reason
>>>>>> why Pulp should stay on the current license instead of moving to GPLv3 (one
>>>>>> of the stated alternatives in this PUP)?  I don't know much about the
>>>>>> differences currently, but it strikes me that our new Pulp 3 using Python 3
>>>>>> would be a good fit for moving to a new license as well that has taken
>>>>>> various things such as this enforcement issue into account and evolved over
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Dana
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dana Walker
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *understanding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ina Panova
>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>>>>>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To make a concrete example to prove my understating:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since pulp_rpm is maintained by core team we could adopt this
>>>>>>>> change, meanwhile pulp_deb is beyond our control and we( core team) cannot
>>>>>>>> enforce or influence this change.
>>>>>>>> Yes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ina Panova
>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>>>>>>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Pulp Update Proposal (PUP) pull request has been opened by the
>>>>>>>>> go-to-lawyer for the Pulp community, Richard Fontana. The PUP is PUP5 [0].
>>>>>>>>> I don't want to paraphrase it here, so please read it [0] if you are
>>>>>>>>> interested to understand what it does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am proposing a period of questions/discussion via the list/PR
>>>>>>>>> and then a call for a vote according to the process. All questions are
>>>>>>>>> welcome, please ask.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> # Timeline
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Today - May 18th mailing list and PR discussion
>>>>>>>>> May 18th - formally call for a vote which would end 12 calendar
>>>>>>>>> days from then May 30th
>>>>>>>>> May 30th - Merge or reject
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> # FAQs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this relicensing Pulp?
>>>>>>>>> No. It's still GPLv2. This adopts a procedural enforment approach
>>>>>>>>> within the existing license. See @rfontana's response here:
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-384523020
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do all prior contributors need to sign off on this change?
>>>>>>>>> No, because it's not a relicensing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does this affect core, plugins, or both?
>>>>>>>>> This PR is only scoped to affect the GPLv2 codebases maintained by
>>>>>>>>> the core team. Plugins make their own decisions without PUPs. Initially
>>>>>>>>> this would be pulp/pulp, and as other GPLv2 repositories are maintained by
>>>>>>>>> the core team, it would apply to this in the future as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180601/e46d070f/attachment.htm>