Having dealt with some other teams that want to integrate with Pulp, I wonder if we shouldn’t move to a more permissive license for Pulp 3. Reason being is that a more restrictive license such as GPL might turn people away from Pulp—people that might want to write plugins, integrate Pulp into their software, or use Pulp. I know it will be a pain to switch core to a more permissive license but I wonder if it’s worth it given that we want to encourage community development, usage, and integration of Pulp 3.
David On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:44 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > After looking into this some more I believe @Simon's observation that Pulp > is operating under GPLv2+ is correct. I don't believe there is ambiguity. > There was confusion though. Specifically we include the LICENSE file in > Pulp's repo (which is GPLv2), but it's the COPYRIGHT file that actually > names what licenses (GPLv2 or later, i.e. GPLv2+) Pulp is licensed as. The > LICENSE file is included as a convenience, but that doesn't mean its the > only license. I've updated the FAQ clarifying this and linking to the repos > where you can see it: > https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ#What-license-does-pulpcore-and-pulpcore-plugin-use > > This means that Pulp plugins must be licensed as either GPLv2 or GPLv3. > Please raise any concerns if this is unclear or incorrect. This has been > clarified in the FAQ also. > > @oleksander here is what I think that means for Apachev2 combinations. > Please tell me what you think. Have your pulp subclassed objects be GPLv3 > since that is an option, and then that code is safe to combine with other > licensed code that is compatible with GPLv3. Apache v2 is compatible with > GPLv3. Galaxy is the effective "combination" of these two compatible > licenses into one larger software. Note that this is a combining of two > distinct license types into one software, but the licenses stay distinct > over time. The Apache 2.0 parts stay as Apache and the GPLv3 parts stay as > GPLv3. I wrote up this case on the FAQ also: > https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ#Can-I-combine-GPLv2-or-GPLv3-licensed-code-with-Apache-20-licensed-code > Feedback on the correctness or this information is welcome. > > Please send remaining or additional concerns. We want to make sure we are > incorporating all the info and correct info as we look at this. > > Thank you, > Brian > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:56 AM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> So I have an update. It appears that our Pulp 3 source code [1], [2] is >> unclear regarding being GPLv2 or GPLv2+. I have learned that Red Hat >> normally uses "GPLv2-or-later" rather than "GPLv2 only" for projects it >> launches/maintains and this was true for the time when Pulp 3 was launched >> as a project. >> >> I suggest that productive path forward would be: >> 1. Assuming Pulp 3 is GPLv2+, can we discuss Oleksandr's questions? >> 2. I suggest it would be most helpful to assume the project is >> *currently* GPLv2+ - the lines are blurred and it seems best to err on this >> side if we are picking for the purposed of this discussion and how we are >> operating. We recently extended common cure rights in our license. PyPI >> lists us are GPLv2+ (due to some code stating this.) Simon licensed a >> plugin as GPLv2+ understanding the project was GPLv2+. We are still having >> this conversation and at the very minimum need to do some clarification. >> 3. I do know several RH employees were under the impression Pulp 3 was >> GPLv2 and I do want to hear any concerns. I would also like to hear if >> there are any community contributors who contributed to Pulp 3 under the >> assumption that it was GPLv2 and hear if there are any concerns with a >> GPLv2+ license. >> >> Thanks all for your patience in getting some clarification here. >> -Robin >> >> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/LICENSE >> [2] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-plugin/blob/master/LICENSE >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:29 AM Oleksandr Saprykin <osapr...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Dana, >>> >>> I would like to clarify under which license terms pulp plugins \ >>> derivative work are eligible to be published. >>> IANAL. As far as I know GPL (any version) requires that all derivative >>> work must be published under the same terms of GPL license. >>> >>> Therefore as a plugin author I cannot release pulp plugin under terms of >>> any other more permissive license than the GPL (e.g. MIT, BSD, Apache >>> licenses). >>> >>> Another example. If Galaxy project released under terms of Apache 2.0 >>> license wants to use pulp as a direct dependency, meaning >>> subclassing *pulpcore* or *pulpcore-plugin* classes, it creates GPL >>> license violation due to GPL license requirement to be licensed under GPL >>> for all covered (derivative) work. >>> >>> OLEKSANDR SAPRYKIN >>> >>> SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER >>> >>> Red Hat >>> >>> <https://www.redhat.com/> >>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:56 PM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everyone! >>>> >>>> Thus far, Pulp 3 has been operating under the GPLv2 license. Given the >>>> way the GPL defines derivative works, this means that the plugins should >>>> also be licensed as GPLv2. Take a look at this FAQ to further clarify the >>>> current state of things. [0] >>>> >>>> What we’d like to hear is feedback from each of our stakeholders and >>>> community members. Do you have any concerns with this license, or are you >>>> happy with leaving things as is? >>>> >>>> Looking forward, are there any compelling reasons to consider >>>> alternatives at this pivotal time in our community’s growth? Let us know! >>>> >>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> --Dana >>>> >>>> Dana Walker >>>> >>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>> >>>> Red Hat >>>> >>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
