[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Licensing

[Robin Chan]

Hi all,

So I have an update.  It appears that our Pulp 3 source code [1], [2] is
unclear regarding being GPLv2 or GPLv2+. I have learned that Red Hat
normally uses "GPLv2-or-later" rather than "GPLv2 only" for projects it
launches/maintains and this was true for the time when Pulp 3 was launched
as a project.

I suggest that productive path forward would be:
1. Assuming Pulp 3 is GPLv2+, can we discuss Oleksandr's questions?
2. I suggest it would be most helpful to assume the project is *currently*
GPLv2+ - the lines are blurred and it seems best to err on this side if we
are picking for the purposed of this discussion and how we are operating.
We recently extended common cure rights in our license. PyPI lists us are
GPLv2+ (due to some code stating this.)  Simon licensed a plugin as GPLv2+
understanding the project was GPLv2+. We are still having this conversation
and at the very minimum need to do some clarification.
3.  I do know several RH employees were under the impression Pulp 3 was
GPLv2 and I do want to hear any concerns. I would also like to hear if
there are any community contributors who contributed to Pulp 3 under the
assumption that it was GPLv2 and hear if there are any concerns with a
GPLv2+ license.

Thanks all for your patience in getting some clarification here.
-Robin

[1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/LICENSE
[2] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-plugin/blob/master/LICENSE

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:29 AM Oleksandr Saprykin <osapryki at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dana,
>
> I would like to clarify under which license terms pulp plugins \
> derivative work are eligible to be published.
> IANAL. As far as I know GPL (any version) requires that all derivative
> work must be published under the same terms of GPL license.
>
> Therefore as a plugin author I cannot release pulp plugin under terms of
> any other more permissive license than the GPL (e.g. MIT, BSD, Apache
> licenses).
>
> Another example. If Galaxy project released under terms of Apache 2.0
> license wants to use pulp as a direct dependency, meaning
> subclassing *pulpcore* or *pulpcore-plugin* classes, it creates GPL
> license violation due to GPL license requirement to be licensed under GPL
> for all covered (derivative) work.
>
> OLEKSANDR SAPRYKIN
>
> SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
>
> Red Hat
>
> <https://www.redhat.com/>
> <https://red.ht/sig>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:56 PM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> Thus far, Pulp 3 has been operating under the GPLv2 license.  Given the
>> way the GPL defines derivative works, this means that the plugins should
>> also be licensed as GPLv2.  Take a look at this FAQ to further clarify the
>> current state of things. [0]
>>
>> What we’d like to hear is feedback from each of our stakeholders and
>> community members.  Do you have any concerns with this license, or are you
>> happy with leaving things as is?
>>
>> Looking forward, are there any compelling reasons to consider
>> alternatives at this pivotal time in our community’s growth?  Let us know!
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Dana
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> Associate Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190220/4e8af5a6/attachment.htm>