+1

+1

Actually, I'm considering withdrawing the proposal. It has been brought to my attention, recently, that the licensing of pynose is questionable [1,2].

That and the fact that there has been no substantial feedback at all apart from Miro's remark [3], which he voiced already when I discussed the proposal on the Python mailing list, made me reconsider and lean towards retiring pynose.

I have absolutely no desire of getting involved in licensing discussions. I haven't fully decided, yet. But I thought I should leave a comment here.

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pynose/pull-request/1
[2] https://github.com/mdmintz/pynose/issues/16
[3] https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-replace-nose-with-pynose-self-contained/120257/4

OK, I just read through that license discussion. I'm afraid I have to switch to a -1 here. There's no clear indication of what license it's under (and it seems like the primary maintainer has effectively tried to relicense it without the approval of the existing maintainers).

Ugh, yeah... -1

It's pretty clear that the new maintainer is very confused about licensing in the upstream issue. But the discussion is very active, so I think there are chances it'll be resolved amicably. If the orignal LGPL license is restored, there won't be any question about licensing.

I think it's worthwhile to have a nose-compatible test runner. With a few dozen packages, converting them to a different runner would be a lot of work. I don't think we can realistically do that downstream.

I think we should wait a few days until we have the answer.

FESCo members who voted +1 initially, have you read my comments on the proposal and decided to vote +1 anyway, or have you voted +1 without reading my comments? I know it's hard to stay up to date on everything (as you know I used to be on FESCo) but this isn't a long convoluted thread, it's just me commenting 2 serious reasons why I (as the maintainer of Python and nose) don't like this plan. Seeing two +1s here almost immediately after the ticket was opened made me feel quite uncomfortable.

I had not read the comment from three days ago, but I had seen the one from a month ago, and I was somewhat okay with that. I had not realized there was a licensing issue.

FESCo members who voted +1 initially, have you read my comments on the proposal and decided to vote +1 anyway, or have you voted +1 without reading my comments? I know it's hard to stay up to date on everything (as you know I used to be on FESCo) but this isn't a long convoluted thread, it's just me commenting 2 serious reasons why I (as the maintainer of Python and nose) don't like this plan. Seeing two +1s here almost immediately after the ticket was opened made me feel quite uncomfortable.

I looked at the Discourse thread and I swear there were no comments when I first glanced through it, which is why I interpreted it as "no opposition". When you commented here, I went back and saw your comments. So I'm not sure if there was a bug in Discourse or in my eyes the first time, but I missed it.

It's pretty clear that the new maintainer is very confused about licensing in the upstream issue. But the discussion is very active, so I think there are chances it'll be resolved amicably. If the orignal LGPL license is restored, there won't be any question about licensing.

This is not just about the license. This is about how this project was created. See https://github.com/mdmintz/pynose/issues/28 -- all the attribution and git history was stripped.

I think it's worthwhile to have a nose-compatible test runner. With a few dozen packages, converting them to a different runner would be a lot of work. I don't think we can realistically do that downstream.

We have a nose-compatible test runner: nose. pynose is the nose code with patches like ours applied on top. Except the tests, authorship and license were stripped. I don't see how that's better than nose.

-1 from me

This was discussed in today's meeting:

• AGREED: Change: Replace Nose with Pynose (+0, 0, -7)