On 4 Jun 2015, at 2:20am, justin at postgresql.org wrote:
> Good point. As long as they don't start bundling their adware crap
> with it, it's probably not really hurting anything.
The policy that had them host third-party work was reversed yesterday. The
sourceforge page for SQLite now just
On 2015-06-03 20:52, Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2015, at 8:54pm, Justin Clift wrote:
>
>> It looks like the SourceForge admin staff have taken control
>> of the "sqlite" project on SourceForge:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/mirror/sqlite/
>
> Don't worry about it. As the page says, the
On 3 Jun 2015, at 8:54pm, Justin Clift wrote:
> It looks like the SourceForge admin staff have taken control
> of the "sqlite" project on SourceForge:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/mirror/sqlite/
Don't worry about it. As the page says, the SourceForge page on SQLite is just
a mirror rather
Hi all,
It looks like the SourceForge admin staff have taken control
of the "sqlite" project on SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/mirror/sqlite/
The owners there are now "sf-editor1" and "sf-editor2".
Any idea if this is a recent thing, related to their other
string of project seizures?
I can see why they're doing it as well. Some people have different
preferences to grab the repo. I have a script running on one of my linux
boxes that checks periodically (Once a week? Once a month? I can't
remember) for all links on the SQLite download page. If I don't have the
URL or file
Sourceforge is rapidly digging its own grave with its awful behavior. It's
hardly "taken control" of the project, it's just another fork, essentially.
SQLite isn't even copyrighted and has no licence, so no problem there.
Using the SQLite trademark might be a problem though.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015
6 matches
Mail list logo
