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 <bbout...@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- > bugzilla/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 <dawal...@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 <ipan...@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 <ipan...@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 <bbout...@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@redhat.com >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev