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

[Brian Bouterse]

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/99fcd35e1cc396a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333
[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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180523/2759bb74/attachment.htm>