I'm sorry, it's clear that a civil discussion isn't possible here. I'm setting you to moderated and please feel free to go and try some other hosting provider.
Chris On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Keanen <[email protected]> wrote: > If I don't use Google Code, I can't have an open source project. > Google Code projects always show up in search results, there are no > ads, and Google is probably the most trustworthy servercenter in the > world. > > However, I don't appreciate being gangraped by three Google admins who > think that I'm trying to start some movement against Google Code. What > I'm saying is that it's NOT FAIR that you don't provide public domain > licensing, and it doesn't matter how many people agree with me, you > should. It's as simple as that. It's one licensing option, no more. > I'm not asking for something drastic like adopting some license I > wrote, it's an accepted standard. PLEASE consider this. It should be > an option. > > On Aug 22, 11:25 am, Ben Collins-Sussman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Google is providing tremendous free resources to the open source > > community; by coming into our house, it's not unreasonable for us to > > set certain conditions. From our wiki pages: > > > > "[...] we think that license proliferation is bad for the open source > > community, so we only allow a subset of licenses to be used on Google > > Code as a way of discouraging license proliferation. License > > proliferation means the creation and use of new OSS licenses that have > > no reason for existing. There are over 200 open source approved > > licenses, most of which are variants of existing licenses that do not > > add much value. This state of affairs makes compliance with open > > source licenses a nightmare because you can no longer simply rely on > > having a small number of licenses if you use open source libraries (in > > either an open source or a commercial product), but instead have to > > deal with mixing code from as many licenses as you use libraries. This > > is not just bad from a legal perspective, but it is a huge turnoff for > > people wanting to use and create open source. The licenses we have > > chosen cover the needs of 99% of our users, and our stand on license > > proliferation has actually helped to create a dialog about what > > licenses people should be using, and given us a chance to educate > > people about good license choice." > > > > We believe that by restricting license choice, we're helping the open > > source for the long term, at the cost of angering a few people here > > and there in the short term. It's easy to mistake the noisy minority > > for a general uprising, but what you're not hearing is the other 98% > > of users who *do* choose a standard licence. Nobody is forcing you to > > come into our house. > > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Keanen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's your comment that doesn't make sense, Chris. Google only hosts > > > programs licensed under a few licenses, meaning that Google forces > > > projects to be licensed under those licenses. Other sites like > > > Sourceforge just aren't a viable option. Your mission statement even > > > admits to this, with the phrase "standards that promotes best > > > practices in open source software engineering." You clearly don't > > > support free choice, as there are numerous requests for commercial and > > > public domain licensing, and yet you only allow a few open source > > > licenses. Half your licenses are GPLs, which don't even support > > > commercial development! There's nowhere else for us to go, so we are > > > forced to operate under Google's stringent licensing requirements. I > > > believe we should have a right to write our own licenses, or at least > > > have "public domain" as an option. > > > > > -Keanen > > > > > On Aug 22, 9:37 am, Chris DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Right now, we only host those programs licensed under the licenses > listed on > > >> the site. There are other sites that host pd programs. If indeed > google came > > >> to your house, forced you to use another license, then maybe your > comment > > >> would make sense. > > > > >> Chris > > > > >> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Keanen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > I know how public domain works, I recognize that a lot of countries > > >> > don't support it, and I absolutely hold all rights to my software. > The > > >> > problem with permissive licensing is that the license must be > > >> > distributed along with the software, which, unless it is only one > line > > >> > of text, provides too many legal complications. I am confident with > > >> > crediting myself as the original creator and providing a disclaimer. > I > > >> > don't believe in restricting other people's rights. > > > > >> > If someone were to, hypothetically, place their project in the > public > > >> > domain when they didn't hold all of the rights to it, Google would > not > > >> > have to assume liability. It would be that person's fault. I > wouldn't > > >> > call it "facilitation" to license anything under the public domain > > >> > blanket, it would just be a lack of restriction thereof. As I'm > sure, > > >> > Google is all for freedom of information, or am I wrong? > > > > >> > -Keanen > > > > >> > On Aug 22, 6:21 am, Augie Fackler <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > Fromhttp://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/FAQ#Hosted_Tools: > > >> > > """ > > >> > > The concept of "public domain" is actually a lot more complicated > than > > >> > > most people realize. Holding copyright and using a (permissive) > > >> > > licence is almost always the right choice. In general, we do not > offer > > >> > > to host projects with source code in the public domain. However, > if > > >> > > you can only release your code as public domain, and you are sure > that > > >> > > you can legally do so, please enter an issue for us to review your > > >> > > request and create the project for you. > > >> > > """ > > > > >> > > If you look around in OSI licensing discussion archives, they > strongly > > >> > > discourage use of public domain in lieu of a real license, with > some > > >> > > legal justification. > > > > >> > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Keanen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > > I brought it up as an issue in support, but it was marked as > "invalid" > > >> > > > because I was told that it was on a case-by-case basis. > > > > >> > > > Now, I have a serious problem with that. The public domain is a > great > > >> > > > licensing solution, and it shouldn't require any kind of > approval. > > >> > > > Especially from Google, one of the largest software developers > in the > > >> > > > world. > > > > >> > > > So, at the very least, I am requesting public domain for my old > > >> > > > AltAuto project (altauto.googlecode.com), but really, I would > like to > > >> > > > make a difference in the Google Code licensing system. I think > public > > >> > > > domain is a viable option. > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > >> > Groups "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. > > >> > > > To post to this group, send email to > > >> > [email protected]. > > >> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> > [email protected]<google-code-hosting%[email protected]> > <google-code-hosting%[email protected]<google-code-hosting%[email protected]> > > > > >> > . > > >> > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > >> > groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en. > > > > >> > -- > > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > >> > "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. > > >> > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > >> > [email protected]<google-code-hosting%[email protected]> > <google-code-hosting%[email protected]<google-code-hosting%[email protected]> > > > > >> > . > > >> > For more options, visit this group at > > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en. > > > > >> -- > > >> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. > > >> Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found athttp:// > code.google.com > > >> Personal Site and Weblog:http://dibona.com > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-code-hosting%[email protected]> > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-code-hosting%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en. > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en.
