[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Licensing
daviddavis at redhat.com
Mon Mar 11 15:12:18 UTC 2019
Having dealt with some other teams that want to integrate with Pulp, I
wonder if we shouldn’t move to a more permissive license for Pulp 3. Reason
being is that a more restrictive license such as GPL might turn people away
from Pulp—people that might want to write plugins, integrate Pulp into
their software, or use Pulp. I know it will be a pain to switch core to a
more permissive license but I wonder if it’s worth it given that we want to
encourage community development, usage, and integration of Pulp 3.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:44 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> After looking into this some more I believe @Simon's observation that Pulp
> is operating under GPLv2+ is correct. I don't believe there is ambiguity.
> There was confusion though. Specifically we include the LICENSE file in
> Pulp's repo (which is GPLv2), but it's the COPYRIGHT file that actually
> names what licenses (GPLv2 or later, i.e. GPLv2+) Pulp is licensed as. The
> LICENSE file is included as a convenience, but that doesn't mean its the
> only license. I've updated the FAQ clarifying this and linking to the repos
> where you can see it:
> This means that Pulp plugins must be licensed as either GPLv2 or GPLv3.
> Please raise any concerns if this is unclear or incorrect. This has been
> clarified in the FAQ also.
> @oleksander here is what I think that means for Apachev2 combinations.
> Please tell me what you think. Have your pulp subclassed objects be GPLv3
> since that is an option, and then that code is safe to combine with other
> licensed code that is compatible with GPLv3. Apache v2 is compatible with
> GPLv3. Galaxy is the effective "combination" of these two compatible
> licenses into one larger software. Note that this is a combining of two
> distinct license types into one software, but the licenses stay distinct
> over time. The Apache 2.0 parts stay as Apache and the GPLv3 parts stay as
> GPLv3. I wrote up this case on the FAQ also:
> Feedback on the correctness or this information is welcome.
> Please send remaining or additional concerns. We want to make sure we are
> incorporating all the info and correct info as we look at this.
> Thank you,
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:56 AM Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> So I have an update. It appears that our Pulp 3 source code ,  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.
>>  https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/LICENSE
>>  https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-plugin/blob/master/LICENSE
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:29 AM Oleksandr Saprykin <osapryki at redhat.com>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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. 
>>>> 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!
>>>>  https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ
>>>> Dana Walker
>>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>> Red Hat
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev