The FSF Europe recommends: avoid SourceForge

[FSF Europe]

The FSF Europe recommends: start avoiding SourceForge and use
alternative services instead!


Loïc Dachary: SourceForge drifting

[permanent URL of this document:
http://fsfeurope.org/news/article2001-10-20-01.en.html]

Over the past few months the SourceForge development facility, which
hosts a large number of Free Software projects, has changed its
policies. Features for exporting a project from SourceForge have been
removed. The implementation used to be exclusively Free Software but
is now based on non-free software. Finally, VA Linux[1] has become
rather underhand in their attempts to grasp exclusive control of
contributors' work.

SourceForge did a lot of good for the Free Software community, but
it's now time to break free.


* Locking users in a non-free software world

SourceForge brought to Free Software a unified and standard
development methodology based on modern tools. Before SourceForge,
such tools (bug tracking, cvs, web, support, forums, polls, news,
etc.) were available individually, but few developers used many of
them together, because they had to set up the combined facilities on
their own. SourceForge made the combination conveniently available for
both new and experienced developers.

Because of the convenience of SourceForge, many Free Software
developers have come to take this collection of features for granted,
and would be reluctant to go back to the old way of doing things.
Unfortunately, this means that when SourceForge itself takes a turn
for the worse, it tends to pull Free Software developers down with it.

The second important thing SourceForge did was to provide this
environment based exclusively on Free Software. By doing this,
SourceForge not only provided a powerful methodology for the Free
Software community, it also demonstrated what Free Software could do,
and promoted the use of Free Software. And since the special software
for SourceForge was itself free, anyone could set up a similar site.
The SourceForge software became permanently available to developers
everywhere. Developers in (say) India who can't afford the bandwidth
to use the SourceForge site could have the benefit of the same
features on their own server.

In August 2001, VA Linux reversed those policies and introduced
non-free software on the SourceForge server. In announcing this, Larry
Augustin (VA Linux CEO) claims that SourceForge.net users will "see
virtually no changes." That may be true if they narrow their vision
and consider only what job the site does and how to operate it. But
when we consider the implications, things are very different now.
Instead of a showcase for Free Software, SourceForge is now a demo
site for non-free software. There is a danger that the many thousands
of people registered on SourceForge will become increasingly hooked on
the SourceForge site and on features implemented by proprietary
software.

As a Free Software developer, you are still free to use the
SourceForge server, but you won't have the freedom to copy, modify,
study and distribute the software it runs; you won't be free to set up
a similar site yourself, or adapt it to your own needs. The last
published release of the SourceForge software is one year old.

The move to non-free software was the culmination of a series of steps
designed to lock users in. There never was a way to fully extract
projects from SourceForge, but efforts were made in this
direction--then this year they were removed. At present the only
things you can get are the CVS tree and tracker data
/export/sf_tracker_export.php. Few people are aware of the latter
because it is undocumented. The export page explains how to use
scripts that don't exist anymore; implementation of facilities to ease
project extraction was stopped. The developer community is
exclusively made of VA Linux employees and a few people who are asked
not to disclose the current code.

The mailing lists archives, a major service of SourceForge recently
became unmaintained. Will it be replaced by a non-free software based
solution ?


* Contributors' work appropriation

Here is what happened to me shortly before the announcement that
SourceForge would use and develop non-free software. Because I'm
listed as a contributor (in the sources and documentation) to the
SourceForge software, I received a request from VA Linux to assign
copyright to them. I was not surprised or unhappy with this; many
Free Software projects ask contributors to assign copyright of their
changes to the main author. Assigning copyright to a single holder is
a strategy for defending the GNU GPL more effectively, and I would
have been happy to cooperate in that regard.

But when I read the details of their copyright assignment, I saw major
problems. I was asked to assign copyright of my work that "is, or may
in the future be, utilized in the SourceForge collaborative software
development platform". The assignment was not limited to my
contribution to the SourceForge code, it potentially covered all my
past and future work if it was of some interest to SourceForge.

I was also expecting a promise that my work would be released under
the GNU GPL, but the assignment said nothing about Free Software. VA
Linux would be allowed to release the software I wrote under a
non-free software license and not let the community have it at all.
But I wasn't sure at the time if this was a real concern, because VA
Linux only produced and used Free Software. Two weeks later they
decided to introduce non-free software on SourceForge and that cast a
different light on the question.

VA Linux told me that they only sent the assignment to two people, in
the hope to refine it. We started a long discussion that lasted two
months. I assumed this discussion was to make the copyright
assignment more palatable to the Free Software community, so I worked
hard to give constructive feedback. Finally I was sent the version of
the copyright assignment produced by the legal department. I quote it
here in its entirety:

SourceForge Copyright Assignment

Thank you for your interest in contributing software code to
SourceForge.

In order for us to include the code in our product, we will
need you to provide us with the rights to the code.

By signing this agreement, you, the undersigned, hereby assign
to VA Linux all right, title and interest in and to the
software code described below, and all copyright, patent,
proprietary information, trade secret, and other intellectual
property rights therein. You also agree to take all actions and
sign all documents (such as copyright assignments or
registrations) reasonably requested by VA Linux to evidence and
record the above assignments.

This was even more of a power grab than the first draft. "You give us
total control; we promise nothing". At this point, I knew that the
attempts to clarify the copyright assignment were a waste of time; VA
Linux clearly wasn't collecting copyright assignments in order to
enforce the GNU GPL.


* Escape entrapment

It's time for people who value freedom to escape from SourceForge. It
has become a tar pit from which escape will become increasingly
difficult. Development hosting platforms based completely on Free
Software flourish all over the world. You can create your own, join
an existing one or help write the underlying software. Some months ago
I helped to launch Savannah for the GNU project because I felt the
need of a collaboratively run platform. With friends and
co-developpers we are now re-writing and packaging distributed
development hosting software. The idea is to be able to install and
operate a SourceForge-like site within hours. Savannah will run this
software at the end of this year. At first it may have less
functionality than SourceForge, but it has a bright future because it
is rooted in a cooperative effort of people sharing Free Software.

SourceForge is free as in free beer because it was designed this
way. It was a very expensive and ephemeral gift to the Free Software
community. We could resent VA Linux for such a poisoned gift. On the
contrary I think we should thank them. They brought us methodology,
and taught us that a development hosting facility must be built in a
distributed and collaborative way, not by a single company controlling
everything from top to bottom. Of course that means everyone needs to
spend a little time developing and maintaining these hosting
facilities. We've finished our beer, it's time to win our freedom.

Loïc Dachary


[1] VA Linux is the owner of the SourceForge domain name, provides and
owns the hardware, pays for the bandwidth, hire people maintaining
SourceForge. VA Linux is also the owner of most sites, the largest
concentration of Free Software related resources in the hands of a
single company.

[John Peter Tapsell]

Thank you for a most informative piece.
This is worrying, and p

Post by FSF Europe
Some months ago
I helped to launch Savannah for the GNU project because I felt the
need of a collaboratively run platform.

You have our best of luck for this. Are you basing this upon the sourceforge
code (from a year ago) ?

Also, what was the outcome about them asking for your code? I'm assuming you
said no? Will they just rewrite it, or assume you'll never know whether they
used your code or not?

Is savanah our only alternative at the moment? You mention there are others,
but what are they please?

Can we get the emails you sent to them? :)

Best of luck
JohnFlux

[João Miguel Neves]

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Is savanah our only alternative at the moment? You mention there are others,
but what are they please?

Loïc posted this same text in advogato. In the comments you can find
other alternatives...

http://advogato.org/article/376.html

[Alex Hudson]

Post by John Peter Tapsell
You have our best of luck for this. Are you basing this upon the
sourceforge code (from a year ago) ?

I hope not :)

I used to have to hack on a version of SourceForge about a year ago for an
employer, and it's appalling code. I personally believe that php is
incredibly difficult to program well, but I've seen much better code than
that of SF (I hope mine is better, anyway :).

It mentions that php will be used, perhaps with phpGroupWare?

It's worrying that company like VA {whatever} is going to base their whole
business on SourceForge: I don't really see that it's going to be able to
compete with the likes of StarTeam, etc., and it's certainly not the finest
codebase in the world on which to expand.

Cheers,
Alex.

[MJ Ray]

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Is savanah our only alternative at the moment? You mention there are
others, but what are they please?

Some of them are involved in CoopX, http://coopx.eu.org/ (I think), but the
project appears to have stalled. I am very concerned that FSFE is kicking
someone when they're down (deservedly down, IMO, but still...) instead of
helping to restart the stalled project. No-one will benefit from VA going
under right now, least of all FSFE if their hands have blood on them.

Sounding a note of caution is good, but this sort of massive crossposting of
what comes across as a single-company bitch is horrendous. Please tell me
that the places I've seen it so far (advogato, /. and here) are the only
propagation and that FSFE will close down this issue and do something
productive instead?

I'd actually like CoopX to be more than it was originally intended, and give
maintainers like me some XML-friendly tools to produce data for submission
to and management of multiple hosting and information sites. More of those
thoughts can be found in the coopx list archives, however ill-formed they
are.

[John Peter Tapsell]

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Is savanah our only alternative at the moment? You mention there are
others, but what are they please?

..

No-one will benefit from VA going under right now, least of all FSFE if
their hands have blood on them.

Ah, seems what we have here is a dilema.. ;)
Do we disagree with what they are doing, but acknoledge that the good
outweighs the bad, do we personally try to find and encourage other
solutions, or do we make ourselves loud...


Oh, btw, are there any planned meetings or anything in the future? I still
haven't met any of you guys.. ;)

btw, am I supposed to be cross posting to ***@fsfeurope or not.. ;)

JohnFlux

[Alex Hudson]

Post by John Peter Tapsell

No-one will benefit from VA going under right now, least of all FSFE if
their hands have blood on them.

Ah, seems what we have here is a dilema.. ;)
Do we disagree with what they are doing, but acknoledge that the good
outweighs the bad, do we personally try to find and encourage other
solutions, or do we make ourselves loud...

I think the problem also stems from Loic's (& others) inability to do
anything useful with the codebase as it stands: I'm under the impression
maintaining & extending SF is incredibly difficult currently; which doesn't
surprise me because I had the same problem a while ago (maintaining a SF).

It's not really much good to attempt a fork in this instance.

BTW - another respository is www.tigris.org, but that's limited to certain
types of project.

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Oh, btw, are there any planned meetings or anything in the future? I still
haven't met any of you guys.. ;)

John, get yourself on fsfe-***@gnu.org :)
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk

We're meeting this Sunday!!!

The place is Aston University in Birmingham - if you can make it, you need to
tell Marc Eberhard (***@aston.ac.uk) quickly, to get your name on
the list (otherwise you might not get past the security guards :).

/me resolves to keep an eye out on ***@fsfeurope.org for UKers ;)

Cheers,
Alex.

[MJ Ray]

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Do we disagree with what they are doing, but acknoledge that the good
outweighs the bad, do we personally try to find and encourage other
solutions, or do we make ourselves loud...

We should:
1/ Try to encourage and develop alternatives;
2/ Promote the alternatives with reasons;
3/ Make ourselves loud about these alternative tools;

This should get FSFE seen as the good guys in this and hopefully add more
developers to the cause. We're happy because freedom is preserved and
software developers are happy because they get good, high-quality,
interoperable *free* tools to work with and build on.

It is actually simpler (if not easier) than what seems to be happening right
now:-

We should not:
1/ Try to kill the stricken market leader with negative comments;
2/ Promote our disagreements with them;
3/ Make ourselves loud while saying no new ideas.

This gets us seen as "those whinging free software zealots" and "another
load of VA-bashers", probably losing support.

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Oh, btw, are there any planned meetings or anything in the future?

Sunday. Hope you can make it.

[Georg C. F. Greve]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

|| On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:33:31 +0000
|| MJ Ray <***@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:=20

mr> Please tell me that the places I've seen it so far (advogato,
mr> /. and here) are the only propagation and that FSFE will close
mr> down this issue and do something productive instead?

We posted it to our lists & web site; Loic additionally posted it to
Advogato.org. We had no part in posting it anywhere else although I've
seen it featured in other places like slashdot.

The amount of reaction seems to show that this was a sensitive point
and one that was important to be made. When a community becomes so
dependent on a single resource controlled by a single company, it
becomes necessary to raise questions.

Loic raised valid questions and only got insufficient answers, so he
raised them publicly.

Regards,
Georg

=2D-=20
Georg C. F. Greve <***@gnu.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE78PIvbvivwoZXSsoRAspPAJ9eYB4nOXFjc2NwtAy8oaaYsBDiBwCbBP1E
niikxVYBIhqH+DuwkhU+2vI=
=EqSF
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--

[MJ Ray]

Post by Georg C. F. Greve
The amount of reaction seems to show that this was a sensitive point
and one that was important to be made. When a community becomes so
dependent on a single resource controlled by a single company, it
becomes necessary to raise questions.

Yes, but I feel the overall tone of the piece and focus on a single company
is the wrong way to do it. It would be far better to have an article called
"Beyond SourceForge" that described the CoopX and Savannah NG ideas,
mentioning why they have come about (SF's moves towards lock-in and
non-free) later in the article. This piece leads in with lots of negative
comments about the market leader and is headed "Avoid SourceForge", only
mentioning SNG in passing and not mentioning CoopX directly at all.

Regardless of the problem, I believe strongly that this breaks two golden
rules of good publicity: it focuses on problems, not solutions; and it
mentions a competitor by name. Quite understandably, this has put VA's
people onto the defensive and they're FUDding about FSF like there's no
tomorrow. I'm no expert, but I don't think this is a good outcome for
anyone.

The leader for the article actually has a flawed premise in it: that VA hid
their agenda to take control of software. As other people have commented,
one of SF's original developers, Bowie, has been saying this loud and clear
for years.

No matter how dangerous we think other players have become, the free
software movement must concentrate on promoting itself, not bashing the
other players. No good will come from it and we'll destroy the good will
towards us, the same as VA have.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve
Loic raised valid questions and only got insufficient answers, so he
raised them publicly.

Why not create one's own solutions and present them publically? After all,
the SNG doc seems to be such a set of solution suggestions. It would have
been far better to lead on that.

I think "right idea, wrong headline," I guess. Is it too much to ask for
this article to be pulled?

[MJ Ray]

Post by Georg C. F. Greve
We posted it to our lists & web site; Loic additionally posted it to
Advogato.org. We had no part in posting it anywhere else although I've
seen it featured in other places like slashdot.

Sorry, Georg, this is not completely true. The LinuxFR story says "Posté
par Loic Dachary." I ask again: where else has it been submitted?

What did FSFEurope hope to achieve here? Do they feel that this has been
the most effective and efficient way to achieve it?

If it was just to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about VA centralising
hosting, then was that a noble aim? If it was to try to get a bit more
balance in the distribution of open project hosting, I think there are
better ways to do it and you should publically declare your support for some
of them. It would restore my dented faith in you.

Yeah, I'm going off the deep end here, but this thing stinks.

[Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

|| On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:40:04 +0000

Post by Georg C. F. Greve
We posted it to our lists & web site; Loic additionally posted it
to Advogato.org. We had no part in posting it anywhere else
although I've seen it featured in other places like slashdot.

mr> Sorry, Georg, this is not completely true. The LinuxFR story
mr> says "Post=E9 par Loic Dachary." I ask again: where else has it
mr> been submitted?

I didn't know about the submission by Loic Dachary to LinuxFR - but
then I never really asked him not to do it.=20

I told you all the submissions I know of, others would have to tell
you where they submitted it themselves.


mr> What did FSFEurope hope to achieve here?=20=20

When the issue began, we exchanged several emails with the SourceForge
people about the questions we had and got no answers.

Especially since they announced earlier that they would add
proprietary "features," this got us concerned.=20

We then tried to resolve these issues with SourceForge by talking to
them, but after initially offering to solve the problems, they created
their "you give us all rights, we make no promises" copyright
assignment and ended the discussion.

Because we could not resolve the problems directly with SourceForge,
it became our goal to create awareness for the problems that are
created by this development for the Free Software community. Since
Loic was the one who was most deeply involved in the matter, he felt
compelled to write a statement about it, so he did.

Given the amount of discussion this has triggered, I guess there is
noone who hasn't heard about it by now, so at least some awareness may
have been created.


mr> Do they feel that this has been the most effective and efficient
mr> way to achieve it?

I don't know whether this was the most effective and efficient way,
there may have been a better way that we didn't see. But it certainly
was necessary to raise this issue.


Of course this is uncomfortable and given the amount of admiration
SourceForge is receiving from some, FSF-FUD replies were probably
inevitable. Bashing the messenger has been a favorite reaction of
mankind for centuries.


Although you seem to have a valid point as only few people truly read
the replies. If you carefully read the reply by Patrick McGovern, for
instance, you will find that he says a little bit about side issues,
but totally ignores the big questions.

Although he says that SourceForge is not running on the "Enterprise
Edition" software, this says nothing about whether or not SourceForge
is based on proprietary software.

He completely confuses the Free Software and Open Source definitions
and their relationship and quotes that as a point where "Loic is not
accurate."

Furthermore he says nothing definitive about the plans SourceForge has
with its software or the reason for the copyright assignments. Also he
offers no opportunity to download the current software although Loic
very clearly asked for it.


Taking this step and making such a statement is painful, not very
popular and prone to create heated discussions. It also is necessary
at times.

In this case we realized that the legal base and future plans of
SourceForge had become so unclear that we could only recommend to use
alternative services.=20


Was this necessary? I believe it was.=20

Could we have found a better way of doing it? Maybe.

Regards,
Georg

=2D-=20
Georg C. F. Greve <***@fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org)
Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE78UqmbvivwoZXSsoRAu+iAJ9208I2XLh/7olHU/KPMZxdF4I9zgCfRmZy
yKR/HY8qG/c8sDM+AOXGkc4=
=ocV5
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--

[Jose E. Marchesi]

I told you all the submissions I know of, others would have to tell
you where they submitted it themselves.


For Mark knowledge:

The submit to www.barrapunto.org (the spanish slashdot) was made by
GNU Spain. Also, the article is published in es.gnu.org.

Anyway, GNU Spain is part of the GNU Project, no FSF Europe.


--
Jose E. Marchesi <***@es.gnu.org>
GNU Spain http://es.gnu.org
GNUs Not Unix! http://www.gnu.org

[Josef Dalcolmo]

I forwarded the message about avoiding SourceForge to ***@python.org, because
I felt Guido (the Python creator for those who aren't familiar with Python)
might find the information useful.

- Josef Dalcolmo

[MJ Ray]

I didn't know about the submission by Loic Dachary to LinuxFR - but then I
never really asked him not to do it. I told you all the submissions I know
of, others would have to tell you where they submitted it themselves.

So FSFE doesn't know what its members are doing? Aren't you keeping track
of your publicity activities, even if only to avoid duplication?

mr> What did FSFEurope hope to achieve here?

[...]

We then tried to resolve these issues with SourceForge by talking to
them, but after initially offering to solve the problems, they created
their "you give us all rights, we make no promises" copyright
assignment and ended the discussion.

Does the FSF make similar requests for people who work on its projects?

If this request is unacceptable, why not create an alternative, rather than
publishing a criticism of sourceforge? The best things to be backed by Free
Software movement have been those which are innovations and alternatives,
rather than criticisms like this. If we had had a condemnation of
commercial unix licensing rather than a GNU project, where would we be
today?

Given the amount of discussion this has triggered, I guess there is
noone who hasn't heard about it by now, so at least some awareness may
have been created.

Don't you think that rather a lot of bad feeling towards FSFE has been
created by this publication? FSFE is now seen as a load of bandwaggoning
whingers instead of a group striving for an ideal and taking practical steps
to achieve it.

Of course this is uncomfortable and given the amount of admiration
SourceForge is receiving from some, FSF-FUD replies were probably
inevitable. Bashing the messenger has been a favorite reaction of
mankind for centuries.

Well, if you will post SF-bashing, what do you expect?

Although you seem to have a valid point as only few people truly read
the replies. If you carefully read the reply by Patrick McGovern, for
instance, you will find that he says a little bit about side issues,
but totally ignores the big questions.

Yes, Patrick seems to be a pragmatist and ignores all philosophical/
ideological questions. (Some of you know that I view pragmatists as
extremely dangerous.)

Also he offers no opportunity to download the current software although
Loic very clearly asked for it.
From the opinions I have seen, I doubt it's worth more than the bytes it

consumes.

In this case we realized that the legal base and future plans of
SourceForge had become so unclear that we could only recommend to use
alternative services.

What alternatives? There are currently *no* integrated alternatives to the
sourceforge codebase, are there? I've got a project on savannah, but it's
basically sourceforge code and it's still not very good. I've seen some
advocacy of Bugzilla/ Bonsai/ Tinderbox, but that seems to be a very DIY
offering.

Was this necessary? I believe it was.
Could we have found a better way of doing it? Maybe.

I ask again: will FSFE support, even if only by name and deeds, a project
like CoopX? I believe it offers the best hope for a smooth transition from
the current reality of sourceforge-based sites to the next generation of
hosting services.

[Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

|| On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:51:05 +0000
|| MJ Ray <***@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:=20

mr> So FSFE doesn't know what its members are doing?=20=20

We don't strictly control every single step someone is taking, we
trust each other enough to feel this is not necessary.


mr> Aren't you keeping track of your publicity activities, even if
mr> only to avoid duplication?

Most of the tickers get their information off our mailing lists - of
course we only post it there once. Loic apparently felt pretty safe
that noone else would post it on LinuxFR and it seems he was right.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
We then tried to resolve these issues with SourceForge by talking
to them, but after initially offering to solve the problems, they
created their "you give us all rights, we make no promises"
copyright assignment and ended the discussion.

mr> Does the FSF make similar requests for people who work on its
mr> projects?

No.

We do ask for copyright assignments for single projects because this
enables us to defend Free Software and keep it maintainable even if
the original author is nowhere to be found, but at the same time we
make it clear that these assignments will not be abused to further
proprietary software.

The FSF is not a company, which makes for a profound difference: our
primary goal is to further, protect and secure Free Software and the
Free Software community.

The primary goal of a company is to make money.

So if a company asks for a copyright assignment that goes way beyond
what the FSF asks for without giving any sort of information or
guarantees about their motives, this is indeed reason enough to raise
questions.=20


mr> If this request is unacceptable, why not create an alternative,
mr> rather than publishing a criticism of sourceforge?=20=20

This is what we did with savannah.=20

We are permanently working on the vision of Free Software, striving to
bring it forward. Also the GNU Project is working on improving the
hosting facilities and working on projects around the hosting facility
service - Loic happens to be one of the people involved in them.

But besides working on providing new alternatives, we also criticise
behaviour that is prone to take away the freedom we have earned
ourselves in the past couple of years.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
Given the amount of discussion this has triggered, I guess there
is noone who hasn't heard about it by now, so at least some
awareness may have been created.

mr> Don't you think that rather a lot of bad feeling towards FSFE has
mr> been created by this publication?=20=20

Possible.=20

But this is not the question that should govern our actions. Instead
of asking ourselves "will people like us if we say something" we will
ask ourselves "is it necessary to say this?"


mr> Yes, Patrick seems to be a pragmatist and ignores all
mr> philosophical/ ideological questions. (Some of you know that I
mr> view pragmatists as extremely dangerous.)

This is not an issue of pragmatism although Mr McGovern would like to
make you believe it was.

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.=20

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.

None of this is philosophical or ideological.

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.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
In this case we realized that the legal base and future plans of
SourceForge had become so unclear that we could only recommend to
use alternative services.

mr> What alternatives?=20=20

Even if alternatives like savannah, tigris.org, tuxfamily.org and
others do not offer quite the same functionality that SourceForge
offers, they are usable and exist.=20


mr> I ask again: will FSFE support, even if only by name and deeds, a
mr> project like CoopX? I believe it offers the best hope for a
mr> smooth transition from the current reality of sourceforge-based
mr> sites to the next generation of hosting services.

CoopX does indeed look like a very useful project. I believe that is
why the GNU Project is one of the protagonists working on it. In fact
I believe it may be possible that Loic is already involved in it (I'd
have to search through my archives to make sure).

What kind of help beyond this do you want or need?=20

Regards,
Georg

=2D-=20
Georg C. F. Greve <***@fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org)
Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE78lKabvivwoZXSsoRAuL0AJ9VnFpo9p5pZemkL9mFm2fRPR83igCfdp13
bwm7ktZMmUf97Fs1csSicps=
=OoE1
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--

[MJ Ray]

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
We do ask for copyright assignments for single projects because this
enables us to defend Free Software and keep it maintainable even if
the original author is nowhere to be found, but at the same time we
make it clear that these assignments will not be abused to further
proprietary software.

Sorry, the catch-all nature of the sourceforge one had passed me by too, for
some reason.

Does the FSF have something similar to the Debian Social Contract?

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
mr> If this request is unacceptable, why not create an alternative,
mr> rather than publishing a criticism of sourceforge?
This is what we did with savannah.

But Savannah is another island based on the sourceforge code. It is a
clone, not an alternative and looks poor when compared to the original.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
But besides working on providing new alternatives, we also criticise
behaviour that is prone to take away the freedom we have earned
ourselves in the past couple of years.

Please, if you must criticise, do it as part of promotion of alternatives,
not promote alternatives as part of a criticism.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
mr> Don't you think that rather a lot of bad feeling towards FSFE has
mr> been created by this publication?
Possible.
But this is not the question that should govern our actions. Instead
of asking ourselves "will people like us if we say something" we will
ask ourselves "is it necessary to say this?"

If you cannot carry developers with you, what is the point? If the
movement's leaders have no followers, is it truly a movement?

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
mr> Yes, Patrick seems to be a pragmatist and ignores all
mr> philosophical/ ideological questions. (Some of you know that I
mr> view pragmatists as extremely dangerous.)
This is not an issue of pragmatism although Mr McGovern would like to
make you believe it was.

Sorry, perhaps I have not been clear in this forum, although I thought I
posted something like this here before: pragmatist is my description of the
people who will use whatever means to get their jobs done, including selling
their freedoms. Usually, today's users of the term "open source" are
pragmatists. My other labels are realists and fundamentalists. As an
organisation, I think that the FSF is a realist, although it contains some
fundamentalists.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
In this case we realized that the legal base and future plans of
SourceForge had become so unclear that we could only recommend to
use alternative services.

mr> What alternatives?
Even if alternatives like savannah, tigris.org, tuxfamily.org and
others do not offer quite the same functionality that SourceForge
offers, they are usable and exist.

They are all mere clones of a broken model. In reality, a project needs to
have information about it spread between many sites in order to be most
efficient, but few of the current sites appear to be participating in making
that happen, at least not publicly. They seem content to try to do a
sourceforge-style landgrab instead of working for the good of the community.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
mr> I ask again: will FSFE support, even if only by name and deeds, a
mr> project like CoopX? I believe it offers the best hope for a
mr> smooth transition from the current reality of sourceforge-based
mr> sites to the next generation of hosting services.
CoopX does indeed look like a very useful project. I believe that is
why the GNU Project is one of the protagonists working on it. In fact
I believe it may be possible that Loic is already involved in it (I'd
have to search through my archives to make sure).

If Loic is involved, he appears to be very quiet right now. The only active
participants at the moment are from SNAFU.de and OSDir.org, who are both
good, but hosting provider participation is essential.

The Savannah NG document is a positive move on many of the objectives, but
it has been developed in splendid isolation, as far as I can see. Please,
ask GNU to bring it to the table and help do the groundwork of the XML
schema first. It is a "priority 0" item there, after all.

[OT: I'm bemused by the claim that the SNG doc "is in the public domain". I
thought Loic was French and that they have no legal concept of public
domain publication?]

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
What kind of help beyond this do you want or need?

I think it would be rather more useful to recommend tools developed by CoopX
participants rather than just savannah. If there is anything FSFE can do to
help beyond mentioning it in future press excursions, please feel free to
approach them.

[Klaus Schilling]

Post by MJ Ray
But Savannah is another island based on the sourceforge code. It is a
clone, not an alternative and looks poor when compared to the original.

Then go and help improving it. Using guile as scripting language for
Savannah extensions would be particularly cool. :)

Klaus Schilling

[MJ Ray]

Post by Klaus Schilling
Then go and help improving it. Using guile as scripting language for
Savannah extensions would be particularly cool. :)

Is such a thing even possible? Savannah appeared to be based on the
sourceforge code, which is PHP and I thought PHP is a law unto itself.

[Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

|| On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:14:24 +0000
|| MJ Ray <***@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:=20

mr> Does the FSF have something similar to the Debian Social
mr> Contract?

Other than in its work and documents? I'm not aware of anything beyond
the GNU manifesto or the basic documents about Free Software that
would read comparably to the Debian Social Contract.

But it is important to keep in mind that the Debian project and the
FSF are rather different organizational models - other than the FSF,
Debian is more or less a loose bunch of people getting together for a
single project.


Being a registered charitable organization for Free Software, the FSF
Europe must only do things that further Free Software. Should we
somehow violate this policy, the German (or other local) authorities
would come down on us. Control for these things is actually rather
strict.

I don't know the details for the FSF in the U.S. as I'm not involved
in the administrative work, but I would assume things are similar
there.


Also since the U.S. copyright assignment is not valid in most European
countries, we are working on writing a copyright assignment that will
be valid in Europe.

As copyright assignments are essentially contracts, there is a certain
amount of freedom involved in their creation, so we included a part
that the FSF Europe guarantees the author that it will never abuse the
assigned copyright for proprietary software.=20

We haven't published it as it isn't completed yet, but as soon as I
find some time to finalize it together with our lawyers, we will do
so.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
This is what we did with savannah.

mr> But Savannah is another island based on the sourceforge code. It
mr> is a clone, not an alternative and looks poor when compared to
mr> the original.

Technically speaking it may be a clone, but it is an alternative in
terms of freedom as it was carefully set up to only use and host Free
Software.

Of course the technical issues can and should be improved, but that is
another issue.


mr> Please, if you must criticise, do it as part of promotion of
mr> alternatives, not promote alternatives as part of a criticism.

You are right, it might have been better to end the document with a
more postitive outlook on alternatives.


mr> Sorry, perhaps I have not been clear in this forum, although I
mr> ...
mr> organisation, I think that the FSF is a realist, although it
mr> contains some fundamentalists.

Okay, I now understand your statement better. I believe this is not
how the majority would use the term "pragmatist," though, so
communication problems are to be expected. I'll try to keep your
definition in mind for the next time we have a discussion.

Regards,
Georg

=2D-=20
Georg C. F. Greve <***@fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org)
Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE78pSbbvivwoZXSsoRAgfVAJ9Vh20cz0szzj0vVwA9hOFTU3aXfQCfVp7h
3c6s0Oy8u968h2XUrmoLQok=
=KvE/
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--

[Nick Hockings]

Or we should find an alternative concept that works out better.

It seems:

THE MAJOR COST
is Bandwidth to allow the world's developer community to access the
depository.

THE GREATEST RISK
is one organization can control the code and the most efficient means of
collaboration.

THE TECHNICAL DISADVANTAGE
Bandwidth bottle necks between the depository and the developers make downloads
very slow and unreliable in many countries/regions. (This is a problem for me
in South Africa, and worse in neighbouring countries.)


A possible solution:

There should not be a single depository in a single place. If there are many
local depositories (like one in every major city) the demands will be much less
on bandwidth per depot and on the long distance connections of the net.

Each program would have its home depository. The records of that development
team would then be mirrored by those local depots that recieved requests or
wanted to promote each development project.

The FSF (and anybody else) could then produce directories of where to find the
home and mirrors of each development project. Each depot could then use these
directories to find home depots of the projects it chose to mirror, and point
requests for downloads to the nearest/most accessible mirror.

Who would keep all these local depositories? Any body who wanted to, but my
first choices would be universities. Who in the universities? Staff/Student
Freesoftware Associations would be good. Universities allow a high degree of
freedom to their Societies and often provide significant facilities.
(Esentially a student computing society is aking to connect its server to the
university's network and website.)

What do we need to make this happen? A freesoftware depository management app
that's not too dificult to set up, and lots of student Freesoftware societies,
or other supporters with significant webspace.

(There are lots of other reasons to set up student freesoftware societies, but
this is probably the most significant contribution they could make to the
movement as a whole.)

Nick Hockings

<***@op.up.ac.za>,
<***@tuks.co.za>,
<***@nupedia.com>

[Gerhard Poul]

Post by Nick Hockings
Who would keep all these local depositories? Any body who wanted to, but my
first choices would be universities. Who in the universities? Staff/Student
Freesoftware Associations would be good. Universities allow a high degree of
freedom to their Societies and often provide significant facilities.
(Esentially a student computing society is aking to connect its server to the
university's network and website.)

here are two crazy ideas... :)

(1) Use a concept like debian's and gnu's. - have local mirrors; one or
more by country run by volunteers, mostly local ISPs and universities.

(2) make a central MD5SUM and file repository that is replicated by
loose coupled mirrors using gnutella. - this way you get only MD5SUMs
or signatures from a central site, download your files from various
gnutella hosts near you and verify afterwards that they are valid.

of course you can also combine both approaches.

I don't know what anyone else would think about that and I wouldn't use
it in a commercial setting where I have to guarantee availability and
reliability. - but in a free software environment a distributed approach
might be the right thing if we can't afford the bandwidth.

[Giovanni Biscuolo - Xelera]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------A6E9C6BBF87BBDA4BAA8CF1C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Georg C. F. Greve" wrote:

[omissis]

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
mr> What did FSFEurope hope to achieve here?
When the issue began, we exchanged several emails with the SourceForge
people about the questions we had and got no answers.
Especially since they announced earlier that they would add
proprietary "features," this got us concerned.
We then tried to resolve these issues with SourceForge by talking to
them, but after initially offering to solve the problems, they created
their "you give us all rights, we make no promises" copyright
assignment and ended the discussion.

Actually this is not the best way to try to solve this very
important issue about Free Software.
IMHO that was a very poor attempt to misappropriate the work of
someone else. A *very* different approach than FSF, who asks Free
Software developers to assign them copyright to *ensure* it will
_always_ be free as speech, not as beer.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
Because we could not resolve the problems directly with SourceForge,
it became our goal to create awareness for the problems that are
created by this development for the Free Software community. Since
Loic was the one who was most deeply involved in the matter, he felt
compelled to write a statement about it, so he did.
Given the amount of discussion this has triggered, I guess there is
noone who hasn't heard about it by now, so at least some awareness may
have been created.

You all made a very good job. Thank you very much.

[omissis]

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
Was this necessary? I believe it was.

Yes, it was. Definitely yes!

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
Could we have found a better way of doing it? Maybe.

For what it counts for, I find it a very good way.

CiaoG.
--
Art and science are free and free is their teaching [IT Const., art.33]
Associazione Culturale MiLUG | Xelera
http://www.milug.org | http://xelera.it
maito:***@milug.org | mailto: ***@xelera.it
--------------A6E9C6BBF87BBDA4BAA8CF1C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="g.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Giovanni Biscuolo - Xelera
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="g.vcf"

begin:vcard
n:Biscuolo;Giovanni
tel;cell:0329 9427130
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://xelera.it
org:Xelera servizi GNU/Linux
adr:;;via G. D'Annunzio, 33;Muggiò;MI;20053;IT
version:2.1
email;internet:***@xelera.it
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Giovanni Biscuolo
end:vcard

--------------A6E9C6BBF87BBDA4BAA8CF1C--

[phil hunt]

Post by MJ Ray

Post by John Peter Tapsell
Is savanah our only alternative at the moment? You mention there
are others, but what are they please?

Some of them are involved in CoopX, http://coopx.eu.org/ (I think),
but the project appears to have stalled. I am very concerned that
FSFE is kicking someone when they're down (deservedly down, IMO,

Deservedly? Why?

The way I see it is that VA has in all been of benefit to the
free software community. Sourceforge *has* been helpful to many
projects, even if less helpful than some people want.

Post by MJ Ray
but still...) instead of helping to restart the stalled project.
No-one will benefit from VA going under right now, least of all
FSFE if their hands have blood on them.

True. FSFE won't lok good out of it.

[MJ Ray]

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
FSFE is kicking someone when they're down (deservedly down, IMO,

Deservedly? Why?
The way I see it is that VA has in all been of benefit to the
free software community. Sourceforge *has* been helpful to many
projects, even if less helpful than some people want.

SF wasn't created from altruism and now they have turned their back on open
source, which IIRC they helped to create as an attempt to replace free
software. The balance has changed and SF now does a lot more for VA than it
does for the community. It was basically a mind-share land-grab for VA, the
same reason that it bought andover.net, and if they are going to try to
*alter* community direction, they must be resisted, to the point of death.

Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and still be one
community. They've already had one failed fork attempt with "open source"
and this attempt must fail too. If they don't get any pain from these
attempted subversions, they will not learn not to do them.

Post by phil hunt
True. FSFE won't lok good out of it.

No, indeed. This seems to have revealed some confusion in the FSFE team,
but it looks as though it will only be covered by the "community media" and
not the mainstream press. Hopefully, FSFE will concentrate more on
positives than negatives in future and try to keep track of what its members
are doing. If it can get a positive on this topic out in the next day or
so, the earlier negative may get even less coverage in the weeklies and
monthlies.

[phil hunt]

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
FSFE is kicking someone when they're down (deservedly down, IMO,

Deservedly? Why?
The way I see it is that VA has in all been of benefit to the
free software community. Sourceforge *has* been helpful to many
projects, even if less helpful than some people want.

SF wasn't created from altruism

I never said it was. Nor, for example, are Sun and IBM releasing
free software out of altruism, they are doing it in order to
increase their profits.

Post by MJ Ray
and now they have turned their back
on open source, which IIRC they helped to create as an attempt to
replace free software.

Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially) with a
different name.

Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?

Post by MJ Ray
The balance has changed and SF now does a
lot more for VA than it does for the community. It was basically a
mind-share land-grab for VA, the same reason that it bought
andover.net, and if they are going to try to *alter* community
direction, they must be resisted, to the point of death.

I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so
extreme.

To be the question is: does sourceforge involve vendor lock-in? If
the answer is yes, then I won't use it, and I will recommend that
others not use it without satisfying themselves that they are aware
of that issue and what it implies and it isn't a problem for them.

Post by MJ Ray
Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and still
be one community.

Sure it can. And in fact the free software community often moves
in several directions at the same time. So we have Linux and BSD
and Hurd. We have Gtk+ and Qt and Tk. We have GNOME and KDE. We
have INN and leafnode and sn. We have no end of news readers and
mail clients.

And we are still one community. Long live free software!

Post by MJ Ray
They've already had one failed fork attempt with
"open source"

That's a rebranding program not a fork attempt. A rose would
still be a rose if I decided to call it a "wug" as well.

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt
True. FSFE won't lok good out of it.

No, indeed. This seems to have revealed some confusion in the FSFE
team, but it looks as though it will only be covered by the
"community media" and not the mainstream press. Hopefully, FSFE
will concentrate more on positives than negatives in future

Good idea.

Post by MJ Ray
and try
to keep track of what its members are doing. If it can get a
positive on this topic out in the next day or so, the earlier
negative may get even less coverage in the weeklies and monthlies.

[MJ Ray]

Post by phil hunt
Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially) with a
different name.
Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?

Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so there is
disagreement.

Post by phil hunt
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so
extreme.

Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and still
be one community.

Sure it can. And in fact the free software community often moves
in several directions at the same time. So we have Linux and BSD
and Hurd. We have Gtk+ and Qt and Tk. We have GNOME and KDE. We
have INN and leafnode and sn. We have no end of news readers and
mail clients.

None of the others are incompatible directions with the others, merely
different paths to roughly the same objectives. That's why they can
co-exist happily, if not always totally peacefully.

Is there place for non-free software in the free software community?
Clearly not, by definition. They cannot co-exist.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
They've already had one failed fork attempt with
"open source"

That's a rebranding program not a fork attempt. A rose would
still be a rose if I decided to call it a "wug" as well.

OSI include licences as meeting their definition that FSF doesn't. The
generic term "Open Source" includes things (eg from Sun, MS et al) that
neither would endorse. (This last is why I believe that OSI's rebranding
has failed and made our task harder, not easier.)

Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.

[Alistair Davidson]

Post by MJ Ray
Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.

Are you the one responsible for the Unix directory names? ;p

[phil hunt]

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt
Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially)
with a different name.
Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?

Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so
there is disagreement.

About the name, not the fact.

I know what sort of software I like to use. I'm not bothered what
people call it, they can name it "wuggywugwug software" for all
I care.

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so
extreme.

Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.

Sure, but even that's too harsh, IMO.

(Now if you'd said you wanted to see Microsoft bankrupt... :-))

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
Harsh, I know, but a community can't go two ways at once and
still be one community.

Sure it can. And in fact the free software community often moves
in several directions at the same time. So we have Linux and BSD
and Hurd. We have Gtk+ and Qt and Tk. We have GNOME and KDE. We
have INN and leafnode and sn. We have no end of news readers and
mail clients.

None of the others are incompatible directions with the others,

Sure they are, you can't run Linux and BSD on the same box at the
same time (unless you're using something like VMware).

Post by MJ Ray
merely different paths to roughly the same objectives. That's why
they can co-exist happily, if not always totally peacefully.
Is there place for non-free software in the free software
community?

The cxommunity is made up of people not programs. Is there a place
for people who use non-free software in the free software community?

Yes, IMO.

Post by MJ Ray
Clearly not, by definition. They cannot co-exist.

In point of fact there are many examples of free and non-free software
both existing at the same time to do the same job.

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
They've already had one failed fork attempt with
"open source"

That's a rebranding program not a fork attempt. A rose would
still be a rose if I decided to call it a "wug" as well.

OSI include licences as meeting their definition that FSF doesn't.
The generic term "Open Source" includes things (eg from Sun, MS et
al) that neither would endorse. (This last is why I believe that
OSI's rebranding has failed and made our task harder, not easier.)
Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.

Splitter. :-)

[MJ Ray]

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so
extreme.

Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.

Sure, but even that's too harsh, IMO.

Why? If it's them or us, I want it to be them.

Post by phil hunt
(Now if you'd said you wanted to see Microsoft bankrupt... :-))

Why one rule for MS and another for VA? To me, it's immaterial who is
threatening us. MS is not the great Satan, although they do have a proven
track record as a "predatory monopolist" or whatever the US judges said.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
None of the others are incompatible directions with the others,

Sure they are, you can't run Linux and BSD on the same box at the
same time (unless you're using something like VMware).

They are free unix-like operating systems which share much code. I'd call
that more compatible than mutually exclusive.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
Is there place for non-free software in the free software
community?

The cxommunity is made up of people not programs. Is there a place
for people who use non-free software in the free software community?
Yes, IMO.

That's where we'll have to differ. I don't think that we should support
predatory proprietary software at all. What you do in your own time is up
to you, but it is clearly outside this movement.

Why do I think they're incompatible? Well, the creator of the non-free is
compelled (by law, usually) to try to corner the market, while the creator
of the free may try to make a good implementation.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
Oh, and if you call it a wug, I shall insist the plural is wugfskz.

Splitter. :-)

I'm not the one in the People's Front of Judea! :-)

[Alceste Scalas]

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt
Open source and free software are the same thing (essentially)
with a different name.
Would a rose by another name smell as sweet?

Yes, but one man says it is pink, while another says it is red, so
there is disagreement.

=20
About the name, not the fact.

Uhmm... I don't want to be pedantic (and maybe we are just saying
the same thing), but, for the sake of clarity...

=46rom http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:

# Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source
# movement
#
# The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like
# two political camps within the free software community.=20
#
# Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for
# factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on
# details of strategy, and then hated each other. They agreed on
# the basic principles, and disagreed only on practical
# recommendations; but they considered each other enemies, and
# fought tooth and nail. Or at least, such is the image people
# have, whether or not it was accurate.
#
# The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open
# Source movement is just the opposite of that picture. We
# disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the
# practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on
# many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source
# movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software.
#
# We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want
# to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have
# contributed to our community, but we created our community. We
# want people to associate our achievements with our values and
# our philosophy. We want to be heard, not hidden behind a
# different view.

So, Open Soure and Free Software are two different flowers --- even
if they may look similar (at least, sometimes). But, since they are
different, their name does matter... :-)

Regards,

Alceste

P.S.: one of the persons who really considered Open Source and Free
Software almost the same thing was Bruce Perens --- and, when
this consideration proved itself to be wrong, he left the OSI,
and started to speak about Free Software again...=20
--=20
This .signature is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version. ___________________________________=
=20
______________________________________) PGP information in e-mail header |

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE78ylxKdo6EofyCO4RAmSSAKDJitG6YiQB+n2JtA8nlyiSH4A2BACgj9I8
/QNJf6kWYCKHzuDpG7SRjoc=
=cPSP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk--

[William Anderson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "phil hunt" <***@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <***@fsfeurope.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: The FSF Europe recommends: avoid SourceForge

[snip]

Post by MJ Ray

Post by phil hunt
I think it would be more effective if you didn't come across so
extreme.

Sorry, I meant death on a corporate level, not a personal one.

Sure, but even that's too harsh, IMO.
(Now if you'd said you wanted to see Microsoft bankrupt... :-))

so it's one rule for the monopolist, and another for everyone else? how can
the community be seen to be operating on a professional level when this
persistent attitude exists of "kill bill gates" and "destroy microsoft" (or
similar derogatory terms) ...

Instead of constantly slurring the guy and his corporation, why not create
better, faster, stronger tools (sorry to plagiarise Six Million Dollar Man
there) and software, and intelligently promote them, instead of all this
Microsoft-bashing ... most people I know who work in the lower echelons of
Microsoft society are good people - they're not _all_ as bad as is made out
at times.

I just noticed MJ's response to you ... it's the bloody Judean People's
Front!!

--
_ __ ___ _ _ _ __ ___ @well.com William Anderson www.well.com/~neuro
| '_ \ / _ \ | | | '__/ _ \ "The thing I love most about deadlines is the
| | | | __/ |_| | | | (_) | wonderful WHOOSHing sound they make as they
|_| |_|\___|\__,_|_| \___/ go past." - Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

[MJ Ray]

most people I know who work in the lower echelons of Microsoft society are
good people - they're not _all_ as bad as is made out at times.

If my memory serves, you work quite closely with one of their former lower
echelon employees on an open source project, don't you? Dick Morrell?

See folks, don't demonise them, as every reasonable person can see the
benefits of free software, given time. I'm still hopeful that the one in
question here will.

If we do demonise them just because of who they currently work for, we're
making a rather unnecessary enemy.

[Armin Herbert]

Post by phil hunt
The way I see it is that VA has in all been of benefit to the
free software community. Sourceforge *has* been helpful to many
projects, even if less helpful than some people want.

I didn't hear anything else yet. Noone from FSFE denies sourceforge has
been very helpful and inspired many developers to concentrate on their
projects and not on the work to organize them. The direct opposite is the
case.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
but still...) instead of helping to restart the stalled project.
No-one will benefit from VA going under right now, least of all
FSFE if their hands have blood on them.

True. FSFE won't lok good out of it.

1. Other projects have less features than sourceforge, agree?
2. People will use those facilities that have the most features they need,
agree?
3. => in the beginning times of the development, only few developers will
use projects like Savannah. What must be done to change this?
4. You say "Make the codebase better"
5. The FSFE says "Don't use sourceforge, use other projects"

I think this is good teamwork. Some work on improving the code, some work
on keeping developers away from the commercial competition. And some
discuss about who's needed more.

[phil hunt]

Post by Armin Herbert

Post by phil hunt
The way I see it is that VA has in all been of benefit to the
free software community. Sourceforge *has* been helpful to many
projects, even if less helpful than some people want.

I didn't hear anything else yet. Noone from FSFE denies sourceforge
has been very helpful and inspired many developers to concentrate
on their projects and not on the work to organize them. The direct
opposite is the case.

Post by phil hunt

Post by MJ Ray
but still...) instead of helping to restart the stalled project.
No-one will benefit from VA going under right now, least of all
FSFE if their hands have blood on them.

True. FSFE won't lok good out of it.

1. Other projects have less features than sourceforge, agree?
2. People will use those facilities that have the most features
they need, agree?
3. => in the beginning times of the development, only few
developers will use projects like Savannah. What must be done to
change this? 4. You say "Make the codebase better"

PHPGroupWare is moving from Sourceforge to Savannah. It is also
integrating a sorceforge--_like toolset into its codebase, which
will be used by Savannah. This is good.

Slagging off Sourceforge is bad. It is counter productive.

[Georg Jakob]

Hello,

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Georg C. F. Greve kindly wrote:

--snip--

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
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.
and
b) McGovern's reply didn't mention this attempt at all...

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
None of this is philosophical or ideological.

No it isn't. It's getting legal. And dirty, too, I'm afraid.

Post by Georg C. F. Greve" (Georg C. F. Greve)
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.

Rather confirm.

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.

Greetings,


--Georg (another;))