+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Dana Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > Dana Walker > > Associate Software Engineer > > Red Hat > > <https://www.redhat.com> > <https://red.ht/sig> > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +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/p >>> ull/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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
