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

Thu May 31 20:08:58 UTC 2018

+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/
> pull/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-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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180531/dbffa62c/attachment.htm>