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

Wed May 23 15:29:51 UTC 2018

+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/
> 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-bugz
>> illa/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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180523/8c53890d/attachment.htm>