Mathieu Roy wrote: > Le jeudi 13 septembre 2007, Christian Bayle a écrit : > >>> >>> >> What differences are you talking about? GForge is GPLed and is a Debian >> package used by http://alioth.debian.org >> For GForge AS, sure, it's closed source, I don't use. >> > > Actually, I do not think it a good business model for free software to be > based on an extended proprietary software. To me, it's just shareware in the > spirit. > Developments efforts should made towards software that any Free Software > company can offer support for. > > Differences I was referring too was also in matter of software UI and code. > > > But anything that could done to improve these software is good anyway. > > Regards, > > If you look carefully Gforge is not based on Gforge AS which is a rewrite using propel. There is no code from Gforge-AS in Gforge, but Savanah tracker is widely based on Xerox CodeX code (http://codex.xrce.xerox.com/fr/index.php) which is GPLed, but only distributed to Xerox clients.
Anyway, if I follow you, all forge are based on Sourceforge(TM) code that is now proprietary software as SFEE, and are de-facto shareware in the spirit? The main problem is the difficulty to gather effort in building a Free Forge, and arguing that GForge is proprietary won't solve this. Concerning the business model, i think the "Forge" one is still to find. For me it's just disappointing that there are so many people working on "Forge" and sometime doing the same thing. To be pragmatic I see some point where we could work together, like packaging, translation, and the best approach for a merge would probably be to work on modularity, so we could reuse modules between forges. Maybe an approach to merge by the database structure could be good in the way that we could at first keep the various implementation and then take the best of all. Cheers Christian _______________________________________________ Savane-dev mailing list Savane-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
