The FSF Europe recommends: avoid SourceForge
jack at unix.sbg.ac.at
Wed Nov 14 13:18:46 UTC 2001
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Georg C. F. Greve kindly wrote:
> In a sense, the FSF is highly pragmatic, we only try to think about
> the long-term effects of something while most people tend to ignore
> them for short-term benefits.
> Patrick McGovern sprinkled some "SourceForge loyalty" dust into the
> readers eye and ignored all questions regarding the increasingly
> proprietary nature of SourceForge, the copyright assignment, the
> future plans or the code base.
It already has been mentioned here, I think: The most interesting point of
McGoverns reply is what he *didn't* mention in it.
And please be espescially aware (and alerted) by the fact that SF tried to
a) Convince a developer to hand over his intellectual property in way that
to me - I am a lawyer - looks rather dirty.
b) McGovern's reply didn't mention this attempt at all...
> None of this is philosophical or ideological.
No it isn't. It's getting legal. And dirty, too, I'm afraid.
> If you read very carefully, you will even find that although he writes
> "Loic brings up a number of points that are simply not accurate" he
> actually does not contradict anything Loic said.
I am worried by the fact that the FSFE seems to be seen as the evil,
kicking SF in the face, when it (economically speaking) is already on the
ground. This is not the truth. I think, a main goal of going public was to
warn all other developers of what SF is/was trying.
I think we should be prepared to lend them a hand to get up again, but we
can only do so if *they* don't play dirty on us (on us all, not on the
FSF). Which they at least tried to.
More information about the Discussion