+1
-------- 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 Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: > +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-bugzilla/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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
