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

Fri Jun 1 16:11:05 UTC 2018

+1

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dfad0047/attachment.htm>