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

Wed Jun 6 20:59:59 UTC 2018

Thanks @asmacdo.

I made the PRs and linked to them in a comment on that issue:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3734#note-4

If anyone is able to go through and lgtm and possibly merge that would be
good.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> 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/20180606/2fca7711/attachment.htm>