The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)
Posted Jul 6, 2012 17:01 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Jul 7, 2012 15:25 UTC (Sat) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
Posted Jul 6, 2012 17:36 UTC (Fri) by webmink (guest, #47180)
Posted Jul 6, 2012 18:01 UTC (Fri) by michel (subscriber, #10186)
standing up for one's own software freedom is "free range meta-trolling"?
Posted Jul 6, 2012 18:24 UTC (Fri) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
webmink, are you seriously arguing that if someone says: I don't want to have to use proprietary software just to participate in this community, that they are free-range meta-trolling?
I don't want to have to use proprietary software just to participate in this community
What if you invited me to speak at a conference and said I had to give my presentation using a Mac running OSX? I know that's your preferred laptop, but would you call me a free-range meta-troll for criticizing that requirement?
BTW, Fontana has admitted that the issue tracker on GitHub is inadequate for the needs of issue tracking for a license, so even your expedient “prefer proprietary software when it's technically better” argument fails here, at least according to Fontana.
Fontana and I would probably both agree that the right issue tracker for a license doesn't clearly exist yet. Orion and I designed stet for texts that are “like legislation”: a document already nearly complete that needed public input. Co-Ment is stet's AGPL'd intellectual heir, but it isn't the right fit for a license text in high flux.
I've asked Fontana to draw up a feature set for what an issue tracker needs to have for license development. I'm happy to be part of the solution and help create one. But in the meantime while that doesn't exist, why is a proprietary solution substandard for the task being used?
Posted Jul 6, 2012 19:18 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Posted Jul 6, 2012 20:54 UTC (Fri) by webmink (guest, #47180)
Posted Jul 7, 2012 1:28 UTC (Sat) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)
Sorry if I misunderstood; since I'm the one who suggested switching to Gitorious, I wasn't sure who else you could mean.
But, regardless, that still leaves the question: is a known-to-be-inadequate proprietary issue tracker solving any problems here? We don't have what's needed, that's clear, so we just use inadequate proprietary software? This seems deeply wrong-headed to me for a project that seeks to write a license to uphold software freedom.
Posted Jul 8, 2012 5:02 UTC (Sun) by jra (subscriber, #55261)
I was faced with that very dilemma. I told them (Apple) to bugger off :-).
Posted Jul 7, 2012 1:25 UTC (Sat) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452)
GitHub Issue Tracker
Posted Jul 7, 2012 12:53 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
Posted Jul 7, 2012 14:39 UTC (Sat) by liw (subscriber, #6379)
Instead of a pure git hosting site, you might also consider a git-based wiki, such as one hosted by Branchable (http://www.branchable.com/), which additionally runs purely on free software (some of it AGPL licensed, too).
The wiki software, Ikiwiki (http://ikiwiki.info/) is powerful, and while it is not a full issue tracker, it provides tools to have a reasonable one; see http://ikiwiki.info/bugs/ for an example.
(I am partly responsible for Branchable; the software is by Joey Hess.)
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds