Voting closes June 2nd. I have read this through and appreciate @richardfontana's response/explanation to questions: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-393317027
+1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > +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/99fcd35e1cc396 >> a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333 >> [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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
