[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Licensing

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Fri Mar 22 21:34:57 UTC 2019

I've solicited feedback from various Pulp contributors and also from the
other teams that had expressed concerns about Pulp's GPLv2+ licensing. The
feedback I received is that the license, as-is, meets everyone's needs.
Without a clear use-case motivating additional license change discussion,
or an individual or group requesting a licensing change to be considered,
the natural outcome is that Pulp's license will remain unadjusted.

As always, if you have concerns (at any time) please raise them.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the thoughtful discussions on how
to best position Pulp to create the most value for its users.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:12 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
> David
> 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:
>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ#What-license-does-pulpcore-and-pulpcore-plugin-use
>> 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:
>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ#Can-I-combine-GPLv2-or-GPLv3-licensed-code-with-Apache-20-licensed-code
>> 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,
>> Brian
>> 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 [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.
>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190322/9232865d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list