On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Lori Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've been hosting my project on sourceforge. I don't know that it is the > best place to host it, but at the time I was looking at project hosting, I > saw either that or savannah, and savannah had just had extensive down time > (I think it was a couple years ago) So I wasn't sure they would be able to > keep the servers up reliably enough. Also, Wograld is based on the crossfire > engine code, and since Crossfire is hosted on sourceforge, I felt it made > the most sense to host it there. However, sourceforge documentation was > really bad so I was never able to figure out quite a few things. I know they > have since revamped the site, so I am not quite sure how it is now. I > intend to get back into it once I get all settled in from my move (I moved > out of New Hampshire, Nashua was just too stressful for me and my husband > after he lost his job there was no reason to be there anymore.) > > Doug Hellnann, a Python blogger and author of the excellent Python Module of the Week series, has recently been dealing with the same conundrum for where to move the PyMoTW source. ( http://blog.doughellmann.com/2008/12/moving-pymotw-to-public-repository.html). He hasn't made a decision yet, but some of his decision lies in what source control tool he ends up wanting to use. In a later post, he points out that the Python developers are investigating changing the Python source as well. The possible scenarios are discussed in a Python Extension Proposal (kind of like an RFC for Python specific changes): http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/ and you can follow the discussion of this PEP on the Python-dev mailing list: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-January/085347.html Hopefully these docs and discussions will give you some insight on what you want to do for your code. -Shawn > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Bruce Dawson <[email protected]> > To: Greg Rundlett <[email protected]> > Cc: GNHLUG <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:22:21 AM > Subject: Re: Launchpad to be free > > Greg Rundlett wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Bill McGonigle <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > >> On 02/27/2009 08:35 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> > >>> Somewhere or another there was an explanation in writing... Oh, there, > >>> found it: > >>> > >> Ah: > >> > >> "There are two components, Soyuz and Codehosting, that we're keeping > >> internal. They're part of Canonical's "secret sauce" in business areas > >> that we care a lot about, and for now the costs to us of opening them up > >> outweigh the benefits." > >> > >> > > > > My simple interpretation is that Canonical sees a benefit in opening > (most) > > of Launchpad which should strengthen their position in the marketplace. > > Once their leadership position is further solidified, they have less risk > > with completing what they started (Mark Shuttleworth said he would like > to > > open the source to Launchpad a long time ago). The alternate - assuming > > they were even ready - seems like it would risk people opening dozens of > > code hosting sites (seeking ad revenue) which serves to only fragment the > > market for code hosting. > > > > An over-simplification is that they are open-sourcing to compete against > and > > catch up to services like GitHub. > > > > The skeptic would say they are opening enough to get free labor AND > > increased market share to fuel new product development (aka Launchpad > > Enterprise). > > > > The fact that Sourceforge (the code) was free a long time ago, and went > > through free/non-free versions is an example of how money interests can > > trump freedom. I'd also say that the quality of the Sourceforge system > > would be much better if it were free (e.g. it doesn't support other > version > > control systems). Sourceforge's TOS basically "All your code are belong > to > > us" (you grant them a proprietary license [1]). I think it's a big plus > to > > the community that we will once again have a free code hosting system. > > Maybe this time they won't follow the same path as Sourceforge. Or maybe > > not. Karl Fogel seems to be very much involved in this [2] and he was > also > > very much involved (in Subversion and) CollabNet [3], so he would know > the > > true intentions and dynamics at play. > > > > I guess what I'm saying is that either Canonical wants to be in the Code > > Hosting business, or not. I don't know. I'm hoping for the latter. > What I > > do know is that we have room for improvement because there really aren't > ANY > > free and complete code hosting systems [4]. > > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourceforge#cite_note-4 > > [2] https://dev.launchpad.net/OpenSourcing#what > > [3] http://producingoss.com/cv/ > > [4] > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_software_hosting_facilities > > > > Risking being called on what "free and complete" means, I would venture > to say that savannah.gnu.org and savannah.nongnu.org are very free (at > least in the GNU sense of free), and complete enough for me to host at > least one project on. > > --Bruce > > _______________________________________________ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ >
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
