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

Mon Jun 4 13:25:32 UTC 2018

With no blocking votes, one +0,and five +1's this pup has passed. Thank you
to everyone who contributed to this PUP, especially @richardfontana.

As a next step, we need to add the COMMITMENT file to all the right repos.
If anyone wants to do that feel free and maybe reply on-thread, otherwise
I'll do it when I'm back from PTO on Wed.

https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0005.md

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180604/126c6688/attachment.htm>