+1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> 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/ > 99fcd35e1cc396a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333 > [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9 > > -Brian > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
