[License-review] moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]

[Smith, McCoy]

FWIW, the GPLv3 revision process used stet (https://github.com/greenrd/stet), which is licensed AGPL with an exception.  I thought that tool was decent for allowing a wide number of inputs, linked to particular text sections.  It looks a lot like the comment bubbles you see in LibreOffice/OpenOffice (and Microsoft Word), with – IIRC – a “heat map” type feature to indicate areas of text that are receiving the most commentary.  That was 10+ years ago, and the tool might be improved from the way it functioned back then.

Richard Fontana can probably comment as to whether he thought it was effective from the receiving end.

I do think there is a need for some other mechanism to gather commentary rather than the mailing list and archives.  In response to recent questions raised about the process, I was trying to see the state of the various licenses still awaiting a final decision, and what issues seemed to still be unresolved, and it’s hard to decipher (particularly for NOSA, which has lots of commentary over a long period of time).

From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:39 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]

My preference would be for OSI to use open source tools. It's a credibility thing. We talk the talk, we should walk the walk. For some reason OSI internal business is using G Suite, and someone's using GitHub? As far as I'm aware, these things aren't entirely open source.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180619/65152f74/attachment.html>