Given our conclusion that pulpcore and pulpcore-pluginare "GPL v2 or any later version", I just found a README where we could clarify our licensing (adding the "or later version") and wrote up this task: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4592
I also added a few ideas of places we can check, so I know it's a bit broad. I'm cool if we need to break this up (or make it an issue vs. a task) please provide some feedback/updates. I wanted to capture this and if anyone else remembers a place where they were misled to the licensing of Pulp please add it. I also didn't want us to do any license changes (even if they are corrections) just through github PRs since I want to be transparent that these are clarifications and not a slipping in of license changes. On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:35 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > I've solicited feedback from various Pulp contributors and also from the > other teams that had expressed concerns about Pulp's GPLv2+ licensing. The > feedback I received is that the license, as-is, meets everyone's needs. > Without a clear use-case motivating additional license change discussion, > or an individual or group requesting a licensing change to be considered, > the natural outcome is that Pulp's license will remain unadjusted. > > As always, if you have concerns (at any time) please raise them. > > Thank you to everyone who participated in the thoughtful discussions on > how to best position Pulp to create the most value for its users. > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:12 AM David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> [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
