On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Bruce E. (Sam) Slade wrote: > If in fact the section of the url stating the new SourceForge copyright > assingment is reality, then it would appear that SourceForce (VA Linux) > has drifted away from their initial position in respect to free > software. Once copyright is assigned to them, they can do with it > whatever they want... which could be quite contrary to the goals and > intent of the original/actual author.
Just to be clear here, the assignment in question is for the Sourceforge software, not for any of the source code in the projects it supports. This is similar to the distinction between gcc and executables compiled with it (that don't link to glibc). > Another case in point is what happened to the ex-Walnut Creek, really > hardcore pushers of FreeBSD and Slackware among otherthings. They sold > out and were bought by another company that changed the direction, and > Slackware had to find another home, SourceForge... hmmmm.... so now is > Slackware going to have to move again, or sign away copyright... how > can you sign away copyright on material based on free software that > isn't yours to sign a copyright away on?? The "power grab" in this case does not apply to Slackware... it is limited to the code that implements the Sourceforge functionality. > A lot of questions buried in there. I guess the first stage really > boils down to what the actual "fact" is regarding the FSF Europe URL. > If it is in fact solid truth, it wouldn't appear to offer much choice, > either sign over your rights, or move on. I think this is a bad situation as it stands for Loic Dachary, but the situation is not qutie so dire yet for the rest of us. I have to admit to some skepticism that depending on Sourceforge is a good thing... if they need to resort to closing their source to be viable as a commercial entity, then when their business fails then all of the content in Sourceforge will be at risk... possibly with little or no warning. Of course, since that holds true whether they close their source or not, having mirrors is the only way to address that problem. If we cannot mirror the content on their system, then LEAF is at risk. So... a) I don't think the open/closed copyright issue affects LEAF directly, but b) a distributed LEAF web system should be maintained. Charles Steinkuehler's site is about the only well-known alternate at this time. I am working toward a setup that might allow mirroring, but it will be on a flaky connection. > > David Douthitt wrote: > > > > FSF Europe is advising authors to move away from SourceForge. > > > > What do you think? > > > > http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/article2001-10-20-01.en.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live... DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
