Re: call tomorrow / 3.4 release work to be done
|
Steve Winslow
Hi Jilayne, thank you for all your efforts in keeping us moving towards the release! Here are my quick comments on a few of these, and I'll reflect this in the GitHub issues as applicable: 1. #729 - additional
optional text in MIT - I actually already merged this, but wanted to
draw attention to it in case any of the lawyer disagreed :) [SDW] Looks good to me -- thank you and Alexios for adding! 2. #717
- new license: SATA - no response from author on question - my
inclination is to hold this to the next release and if we still haven’t
heard from the author, then close as non-decision due to lack of
response [SDW] Agree with your suggested approach. I'm inclined to reject this one in any case but we can give the submitter a chance prior to the subsequent release to respond to the questions that were raised. 3. #709 - other releases of copyleft-next - I think Steve has added one - are there more? What else needs to be done here? [SDW] I submitted 0.3.0 as PR #723, which is open and can be merged (unless anyone has concerns). Commenters in the issue suggested that they had not seen earlier versions in the wild yet, so I'd suggest we merge 0.3.0 now, close the issue, and if anyone later comes along with real-world usage of earlier versions then we can add them at that point. 4. #692
- can someone take the task to see where this is in terms of the OSI
review? We were waiting to see if the license ended up changing as a
result of that process [SDW] I'll review this before the call tomorrow. 5. #670 - same comment as #692 [SDW] This has been outstanding with no response for longer than SATA (2 / #717 above). I suggest closing this without adding. 6. #611 -
new license: Froala - this is another one that we’ve been sitting on
for some time. We’ve had 3 lawyers lean to not adding it for reasons in
the issue comments. Let’s try to close this one out, it’s really old [SDW] Agreed, let's plan to discuss this one on the call tomorrow and make a yes/no decision then. I lean "no" on this one but open to being persuaded otherwise. 7. #686 - also needs more discussion, we probably need to dedicate some time to this, but let’s see where it’s at [SDW] Agreed, I had responded in the issue for this one in early Nov. and the submitter responded. I think it's worth discussing this on the call tomorrow, would welcome others' input on this one. 8. #680
- has to do with updating the contributing page, a PR is already up for
review - I think it’s been reviewed already and can be merged, but
please have a quick look [SDW] I just realized that apparently I can now actually check off the checkboxes in this issue =) I'll take a closer look at the rest of this one prior to the call. . . . 11. #646 - Google patent grant - still no movement here, need input from Google [SDW] I think this one is not ready for 3.4, and I'm continuing to lean further towards probably not belonging on the list at all. Related to your next item... 12. #668
- revise description of “exceptions” part of license list - we did
discuss this on Nov 29th call and seemed like everyone was actually ok
with current description and no pressing need to change at the moment -
close? [SDW] I think this part of the discussion got cut short -- can we perhaps move this to future release? I don't think it's a 3.4 item in any event. I don't think we have a specific proposal for changing at this point though so if you'd prefer to close, I think that's okay. On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:46 PM J Lovejoy <opensource@...> wrote:
|
|
|