Hello,
I am about to take over maintainership of a small project (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) ;-) and I'm wondering where is best to host it.
I know that there were some "freedom" problems with Sourceforge in recent history but I can't find any reference to it. I was sure there was some mention of it on gnu.org.
Are these concerns still valid and what are peoples thoughts on hosting code with Googles new software project hosting service?
Thanks
~sm
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 23:12 +0100, Simon Morris wrote:
Hello,
I am about to take over maintainership of a small project (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) ;-) and I'm wondering where is best to host it.
One option might be GNU's savannah, at:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/ (s/non// if it's a GNU project)
Cheers,
Gareth
Am Donnerstag, dem 26. Okt 2006 schrieb Simon Morris:
I am about to take over maintainership of a small project (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) ;-) and I'm wondering where is best to host it.
I know that there were some "freedom" problems with Sourceforge in recent history but I can't find any reference to it. I was sure there was some mention of it on gnu.org.
http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/2001/article2001-10-20-01.de.html
Are these concerns still valid and what are peoples thoughts on hosting code with Googles new software project hosting service?
AFAIK the problems are still there. The new Sourceforge Software is unfree, so is Googles.
Alternatives, which are devoted to freedom: https://gna.org/ (Europe, France) http://savannah.nongnu.org/ (USA)
On 27-Oct-2006, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 26. Okt 2006 schrieb Simon Morris:
I know that there were some "freedom" problems with Sourceforge in recent history [...] Are these concerns still valid and what are peoples thoughts on hosting code with Googles new software project hosting service?
AFAIK the problems are still there. The new Sourceforge Software is unfree, so is Googles.
Alternatives, which are devoted to freedom: https://gna.org/ (Europe, France) http://savannah.nongnu.org/ (USA)
What about Berlios?
They don't say much about the software they use for hosting, other than it is "based on version 2.5 of the SourceForge portal". Does anyone know if it's free software? What about all the rest of their "platform"?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:38, Ben Finney said:
What about Berlios?
Better don't get into the schily trap :-)
Seriously, Berlios is a project of The Fraunhofer Society; well known for their software patent policy. The last time I checked [1], Berlios mentioned in their usage policy that they may in future take the hosted code and use it for different purposes. It has been speculated that this might mean a hosted project grants Berlios limited rights on the hosted software - independed of the license used. Given the history of cdrecord, I'd keep my hands of Berlios.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
[1] This was a few years ago; at a time governmental funding for Berlios ran out. I had several fist^Wface to face discussions with Mr. Schily about it.
On 27-Oct-2006, Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:38, Ben Finney said:
What about Berlios?
Better don't get into the schily trap :-)
I wasn't aware of any connection to Jeorg Schilling;
Seriously, Berlios is a project of The Fraunhofer Society; well known for their software patent policy.
nor was I aware of any connection to Fraunhofer.
Not that I should expect to know: the reason I asked about Berlios, after all, is that I know very little about it.
Can you give some references to read more on these unfortunate connections that Berlios has?
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:42, Ben Finney said:
Can you give some references to read more on these unfortunate connections that Berlios has?
I would need to research that myself again. Out of of the top of my head:
If you look at the Berlios website you notice the a logo at the right top. It gets you to the FOKUS site. FOKUS used to be a project of the GMD (Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung - a highly renowned German IT research institute). It has been taken over by the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft in 2000. At about the same time (or due to this) Berlios was founded to get new funds for the outrunning funding of the FOKUS project. Mr. Schilling has been working for the FOKUS project for a long time and along with Mr. Henckel he convinced the Ministry of Economics to fund a developer portal like Sourceforge. Actually a very good idea and something we have proposed in the EU Report on Libre Software as an immediate way to support the development of Free Software. However the way they implemented it was not very convincing to the community (IIRC, they suggested not to use the GPL and such). Later when the governmental funding ran out, Berlios was forced to sustain themself and as a result it now seems to be a kind business portal on how to get in touch with "open source".
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
Hello!
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 09:42:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
On 27-Oct-2006, Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:38, Ben Finney said:
What about Berlios?
Better don't get into the schily trap :-)
I wasn't aware of any connection to Jeorg Schilling;
http://developer.berlios.de/staff.php.
Seriously, Berlios is a project of The Fraunhofer Society; well known for their software patent policy.
nor was I aware of any connection to Fraunhofer.
http://www.berlios.de/contact/index.php.en.
Regards, Thomas
Simon Morris simon.morris@cmtww.com wrote:
I am about to take over maintainership of a small project (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) ;-) and I'm wondering where is best to host it.
Best place? Your own server and then get mirrors. Several modern version control systems can publish to a simple http server.
[...]
Are these concerns still valid and what are peoples thoughts on hosting code with Googles new software project hosting service?
Google's hosting service seems to share Sourceforge's non-free code problem, and Google has many other problems, locking people out, not responding to bugs and generally polluting the network. See http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google for a rough list. It doesn't include much on the hosting yet, but I'd be surprised if old Googlebugs like the registration pressure, accessibility failures and .coop bans and so on aren't repeated.
Also, I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only). BerliOS.de and TuxFamily.org seem more relaxed, but that does mean you have to check each licence - a problem for browsers more than publishers, I guess. If there's a debian angle, alioth.debian.org is another option.
Hope that helps,
Here in South Tyrol we created a local "sourceforge" using the gforge project code base.
It's meant to give a place for mainly local developed projects. It has the following advantages:
- SouceForge.net is often slow, because of its exponential increasing project number (~150.000)
- Having a place with local projects shows that local enterprises and the PA are active developers of free software
Disadvantage for the projects. A local server has not the visibility as sourceforge.
The installation of gforge is not a simple task, we are now migrating to a new server and it is not just a matter of "apt-get install gforge"...
My tip, if it is possible, don't do it alone, it's a lot of work!
Happy hacking! Patrick
-- Save software competition use Free Software like GNU/Linux See you at the SFScon2006 http://www.SFScon.it
Patrick Ohnewein patrick.ohnewein@lugbz.org wrote: [...]
Disadvantage for the projects. A local server has not the visibility as sourceforge.
Maybe not, but one can still list on directory.fsf.org, freshmeat.net and so on. freshmeat is linked from every sourceforge page - it's a bit disappointing that it doesn't offer a link from the search results page.
The installation of gforge is not a simple task, we are now migrating to a new server and it is not just a matter of "apt-get install gforge"...
Are you keeping notes? It would be interesting to read how it progresses and may help the debian gforge packagers improve it.
My tip, if it is possible, don't do it alone, it's a lot of work!
Aye, gforge gives you a lot, but does take some support. I'd probably host my project on simple http+smtp where possible and only then use one of the existing hosting packages, unless I'd got some extra ambition like the publicity for local development.
Best wishes,
Hi!
I include Martin Wielander in the CC. He is the hacker doing the main work in the migration. I should say the hole work to be honest :-P
MJ Ray schrieb:
Patrick Ohnewein patrick.ohnewein@lugbz.org wrote: [...]
The installation of gforge is not a simple task, we are now migrating to a new server and it is not just a matter of "apt-get install gforge"...
Are you keeping notes? It would be interesting to read how it progresses and may help the debian gforge packagers improve it.
Yes we are planing to create a document about the migration and would like to publish it somewhere, probably on http://www.cocos.bz
Happy hacking! Patrick
Jeroen Dekkers schrieb:
At Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:10:50 +0200, Patrick Ohnewein wrote:
The installation of gforge is not a simple task, we are now migrating to a new server and it is not just a matter of "apt-get install gforge"...
I think that trac is better for a small project.
I don't know trac, but seeing a growing number of sites using it, you probably are right!
Maybe the difference is in the number of projects you want to host and if there should be the possibility to register as user and to request new projects. That's handled relatively good by gforge, don't know if trac has this workflowing features.
Happy hacking! Patrick
Am Freitag, dem 27. Okt 2006 schrieb Patrick Ohnewein:
The installation of gforge is not a simple task, we are now migrating to a new server and it is not just a matter of "apt-get install gforge"...
"Savannah" and "Gna!" use the software "Savane", which is also a fork of the last free version of the SourceForge software. https://gna.org/projects/savane
Andreas K. Foerster schrieb:
"Savannah" and "Gna!" use the software "Savane", which is also a fork of the last free version of the SourceForge software. https://gna.org/projects/savane
Thank you for the note. We will take a look at it.
Patrick
Also, I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only).
Which are perfectly fine. Please refrain from spreading FUD. The requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to software.
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:56 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Also, I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only).
Which are perfectly fine. Please refrain from spreading FUD. The requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to software.
PLEASE let's not start this discussion again. It's been done to death.
Cheers,
Gareth.
* Gareth Bowker wrote, On 27/10/06 13:02:
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:56 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Also, I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only).
Which are perfectly fine. Please refrain from spreading FUD. The requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to software.
PLEASE let's not start this discussion again. It's been done to death.
It's a new discussion.
The old one was whether or not FDL or GPL was best for documentation and whether or not people should be allowed to choose. We don't want that discussion again EVER.
The new discussion is on whether or not it is fair to point out the existence of the FDL requirement to people who want Savannah and GNA hosting.
I think it will be brief, I don't intend to draw it out.
Sam
Which are perfectly fine. Please refrain from spreading FUD. The requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to software.
PLEASE let's not start this discussion again. It's been done to death.
If it was, the MJ would be spreading FUD. Since he does, it is still alive and kicking.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 27/10/06 13:42:
Which are perfectly fine. Please refrain from spreading FUD. The requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to software.
PLEASE let's not start this discussion again. It's been done to death.
If it was, the MJ would be spreading FUD. Since he does, it is still alive and kicking.
I just have one point to ask AMS, as he seems to know: Are Savannah hosted projects required to have project documentation the FDL license?
MJ Ray said yes; I can't tell if AMS is 1. disagreeing with this as a fact, or 2. disagreeing whether or not this should be a problem; 3. or disagreeing with whether or not anyone should be able to point it out as something for consideration.
(2) has been done to death, I don't intend to debate (3), I would just like to clarify (1).
Sam
Are Savannah hosted projects required to have project documentation the FDL license?
They are required to be licensed a free documentation license which is compatible with the GFDL, much like the software hosted on Savannah is required to be under a free software license that is GPL compatible.
If you want, you can dual the document in question under GFDL and the GPL.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 27/10/06 15:06:
Are Savannah hosted projects required to have project documentation the FDL license?
They are required to be licensed a free documentation license which is compatible with the GFDL, much like the software hosted on Savannah is required to be under a free software license that is GPL compatible.
If you want, you can dual the document in question under GFDL and the GPL.
Thanks for clarifying this.
All potential users of Savannah should consider the implications carefully if they feel they might be unable to meet this requirement.
that's me done - thanks folks!
Sam
All potential users of Savannah should consider the implications carefully if they feel they might be unable to meet this requirement.
Please stop spreading FUD. The implications are free documentation and free software. If those "implications" are so bad then you are in the wrong movement.
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 27/10/06 15:19:
All potential users of Savannah should consider the implications carefully if they feel they might be unable to meet this requirement.
Please stop spreading FUD. The implications are free documentation and free software. If those "implications" are so bad then you are in the wrong movement.
Some projects have GPL'd documentation provided by absent contributors. Some projects have GPL'd documentation provided by present contributors for idealogical reasons. The contributors possibly do not consider themselves to be part of any movement.
The implications are both legal and moral that such projects cannot be hosted on Savannah with the documentation.
You have said so yourself.
You keep using the word FUD. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, so that readers/hearers take a decision based on confusion and avoidance of confusing issues and their implications, instead of making decisions based on clear informed fact.
The comments you have disputed have been clear and you have twice restated in agreement the fact of the comments.
There is no FUD.
Where you say "Savannah projects must use GFDL (compatable) license" I say "...and so if you can't use GFDL license don't use Savannah".
How is this direct and accurate clarification FUD in any way?
Sam
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 27/10/06 12:56:
Also, I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only).
Which are perfectly fine. Please refrain from spreading FUD. The requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to software
I think you just endorsed the fact of MJ Ray's claim, that FDL would be required, - which he gives as the basis for his proclaimed avoidance of Savannah and GNA (and also my avoidance).
I hardly see how this is FUD, or that you think it could be, given that you just confirmed the fact.
Whether or not it "being no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatable license when it comes to software" is a material concern is a personal matter.
Your claim that because one accepts GPL (and friends) for software, one therefore likes FDL for documentation; is concise but dubious.
Unless hosted projects are not required to use FDL for documentation you must acknowledge that MJ Ray's warning is not FUD - even if you wish he wouldn't say such things. It would trouble me to find that you didn't want him to say such things; I support a FSF where users make decisions in the light of knowledge rather than dogma. Why should not users be aware of the FDL requirement before they sign up for project hosting?
Sam
Your claim that because one accepts GPL (and friends) for software, one therefore likes FDL for documentation; is concise but dubious.
I did not claim this.
Unless hosted projects are not required to use FDL for documentation you must acknowledge that MJ Ray's warning is not FUD
It is FUD since it is a "warning", when there is no reason to "warn" about this.
FYI, Hosted projects can dual license documentation under another license, like the GPL if they want to.
On 27-Oct-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Unless hosted projects are not required to use FDL for documentation you must acknowledge that MJ Ray's warning is not FUD
It is FUD since it is a "warning", when there is no reason to "warn" about this.
FYI, Hosted projects can dual license documentation under another license, like the GPL if they want to.
So, projects that do not license their documentation under GFDL are warned that Savannah requires this.
Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote: [...]
Whether or not it "being no different than the requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatable license when it comes to software" is a material concern is a personal matter. [...]
FWIW, it's clearly different: the GPL can be used for manuals, but is not an FDL-compatible licence, because it does not allow addition of unremovable adverts and the other FDL problems. So, requiring FDL-compatibility means requiring something less sharing-protective for the manuals than the GPL. :-/
I'll leave it with http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general I can't find my Savannah-FDL links just now.
Hope that explains,
FWIW, it's clearly different: the GPL can be used for manuals, but is not an FDL-compatible licence, because it does not allow addition of unremovable adverts and the other FDL problems.
These are not problems, again you spread more FUD.
So, requiring FDL-compatibility means requiring something less sharing-protective for the manuals than the GPL. :-/
The GFDL is as sharing protective as the GPL, but it it is meant for documents.
Yet again you start spreading FUD about the GFDL, please stop. If you have a opinion, state it as that, but to this point it has always been FUD.
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 16:22 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
FWIW, it's clearly different: the GPL can be used for manuals, but is not an FDL-compatible licence, because it does not allow addition of unremovable adverts and the other FDL problems.
These are not problems, again you spread more FUD.
No, YOU are spreading confusion, and YOU should stop doing that.
Whether you like or not, there are people that do not like the GFDL, and there are documents released under the GPL and the license might not be changeable.
This is a _real_ problem if you want to move to savannah or gna because their policy and your legal situation may simply conflict.
So, requiring FDL-compatibility means requiring something less sharing-protective for the manuals than the GPL. :-/
The GFDL is as sharing protective as the GPL, but it it is meant for documents.
It does not matter how much you like or not the GFDL in some cases. You can't re-license your manuals under the GFDL if you don't have agreement from all the authors.
So please stop spreading FUD yourself.
Yet again you start spreading FUD about the GFDL, please stop. If you have a opinion, state it as that, but to this point it has always been FUD.
Opinion: I don't like being forced to change the license of my documentation from GPL to GFDL
Opinion: I think others should know that if they don't want or can't change the license of their documentation to GFDL they can't "legally" use Savannah or Gna.
Both these opinions are based on facts, please, either confute facts or stop with this propaganda for the GFDL, we know what the GFDL is, if it is good or not for our projects, if we like it or not, or if we want to use it or not.
Simo.
FWIW, it's clearly different: the GPL can be used for manuals, but is not an FDL-compatible licence, because it does not allow addition of unremovable adverts and the other FDL problems.
These are not problems, again you spread more FUD.
No, YOU are spreading confusion, and YOU should stop doing that.
Where is the confusion?
Whether you like or not, there are people that do not like the GFDL, and there are documents released under the GPL and the license might not be changeable.
Yes, and this has nothing to do with the GFDL. Warning users about some "implication" of a free documentation license is like warning users about the implications of a free software license, both are absurd; and this is why it is FUD.
This is a _real_ problem if you want to move to savannah or gna because their policy and your legal situation may simply conflict.
This is a problem for any work which is copyrighted. I fail to see your point.
Opinion: I don't like being forced to change the license of my documentation from GPL to GFDL
Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Both these opinions are based on facts, please, either confute facts or stop with this propaganda for the GFDL, we know what the GFDL is, if it is good or not for our projects, if we like it or not, or if we want to use it or not.
They are not based on facts; if they were, they would not be opinions.
The FUD that is being spread is that there is some horrific implication of hosting things on Savannah, and if you host it there you sell your soul to the Devil. One might just as well start discussing the implication of giving users freedom, and warn everyone about using free software since in many cases the work cannot be licensed under a free software license since the copyright holders missing or whatever.
On 28-Oct-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The FUD that is being spread is that there is some horrific implication of hosting things on Savannah, and if you host it there you sell your soul to the Devil.
No-one said or implied anything of the kind; you came up with this implication all by yourself.
I think everyone has said all they need to say on this now. Observers have the facts and can decide for themselves.
On 27-Oct-2006, MJ Ray wrote:
I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only).
I recall, but don't know a reference to, an occurence of projects being rejected by Savannah for licensing the work as "GPL version 2". Apparently the project was rejected because they didn't have "or later" in the license grant.
Is there any truth to this? Does Savannah have such a policy, or such a history of rejecting projects on this criterion? Anyone got any references to this? (IOW, I want facts, not FUD.)
Am Samstag, dem 28. Okt 2006 schrieb Ben Finney:
On 27-Oct-2006, MJ Ray wrote:
I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL, or HTTPS-only).
I recall, but don't know a reference to, an occurence of projects being rejected by Savannah for licensing the work as "GPL version 2". Apparently the project was rejected because they didn't have "or later" in the license grant.
As far as I remember it was the omission of the "or later" clause that caused the trouble.
They try to make sure, that the projects on Savannah stay compatible to each other. The omission of the "or later" clause can cause big troubles to compatiblity with projects licensed under later versions in the future.
for their official policy see: http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php
| For manuals, we allow only GNU FDL version X or later, or other | licensing which is compatible with that.
P.S.: I like Savannah and I have a project there.
On 28-Oct-2006, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
Am Samstag, dem 28. Okt 2006 schrieb Ben Finney:
I recall, but don't know a reference to, an occurence of projects being rejected by Savannah for licensing the work as "GPL version 2". Apparently the project was rejected because they didn't have "or later" in the license grant.
As far as I remember it was the omission of the "or later" clause that caused the trouble.
They try to make sure, that the projects on Savannah stay compatible to each other. The omission of the "or later" clause can cause big troubles to compatiblity with projects licensed under later versions in the future.
for their official policy see: http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php
Thanks, this is useful to know for those considering which service to use for hosting their free software projects.
Am Samstag, dem 28. Okt 2006 schrieb Andreas K. Foerster:
for their official policy see: http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php
Now I also found this:
Policy on Licenses for Manuals: http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4303