+0 On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Robin Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
