[Pulp-dev] PUP5 -- Adopting the "Common Cure Rights Commitment" for Pulp Core
ipanova at redhat.com
Mon May 14 10:27:35 UTC 2018
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.
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 .
> I don't want to paraphrase it here, so please read it  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
> # 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:
> 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.
> : https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev