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

Fri Jun 1 17:13:47 UTC 2018

+1

--------
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 Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> +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-bugzilla/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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180601/9f4fdd8f/attachment.htm>