Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

2016-08-25 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
We've used GitLab before, and we like it as well.  Might be a good way to go 
too.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Rick Moen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 6:29 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About 
> List
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> [cross-post to license-review, snipped.]
>
> Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil):
>
> > What about GitHub?
>
> Using a proprietary hosting platform for outsourced tracking of open-source 
> licenses?  Could work, but that risks punishment by the Gods
> of Irony.
>
>
> BTW, at $WORK, we found the open-source workalike platform GitLab to our 
> liking.  Caution-https://about.gitlab.com/
>
> --
> Cheers,"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a 
> rose
> Rick Moen  smells better than a cabbage, concludes that 
> it
> r...@linuxmafia.commakes a better soup."
> McQ! (4x80)-- H.L. Mencken, _A Book of 
> Burlesque_
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

2016-08-24 Thread Rick Moen
[cross-post to license-review, snipped.]

Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil):

> What about GitHub?  

Using a proprietary hosting platform for outsourced tracking of open-source
licenses?  Could work, but that risks punishment by the Gods of Irony.


BTW, at $WORK, we found the open-source workalike platform GitLab to our
liking.  https://about.gitlab.com/

-- 
Cheers,"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose 
Rick Moen  smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it 
r...@linuxmafia.commakes a better soup."
McQ! (4x80)-- H.L. Mencken, _A Book of Burlesque_
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

2016-08-24 Thread Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
What about GitHub?  There have been suggestions on the Python-ideas list to do 
this for any new python ideas.  The idea is simple; each license becomes its 
own project.  Issues can then be tracked via the issue tracker, making it easy 
to segregate the issues into individual threads, and as issues are corrected 
or ended, the issue is closed and the git commit where the issue was dealt 
with can be noted in the issue itself.  Finally, as long as we're dealing with 
a pure-text version of the license, we get all the power of git; diffs, forks, 
merges, etc.,

Would this work for everyone?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:51 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; 'License submissions for OSI review' 
> <license-rev...@opensource.org>
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [License-discuss] The License Talking-About List
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> Cem Karan wrote:
>
> > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be 
> > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to
> license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this?
>
>
>
> Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been around these 
> lists for years and I still get confused about their differences. You
> can't talk about license A without comparing it to license B, but those 
> discussions may involve different email lists, at OSI and at FSF and
> at CC. And for additional confusion, lots of FOSS organizations like OSI 
> move discussions from list to list merely to discuss everything a
> second time. It often permanently delays the decision (like the NASA and CC0 
> licenses have been delayed here). That was also often my
> email experience at Apache.
>
>
>
> Someone ought to invent a better solution than email lists to analyze 
> licenses and reach decisions.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:46 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: 
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> 0.4.0
>
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss