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

[Brian Bouterse]

@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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180515/ddadb82b/attachment.htm>