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

Mon Jun 4 13:30:06 UTC 2018

Ive created an issue to track this work. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3734

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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/20180604/900de4a5/attachment.htm>