Re: [Savannah-hackers] Naming our sourceforge clone (was Re: Savannah and non-GNU software)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

>    As far as I am concerned, I think that we should not be that
>    restrictive. For example, I think IBM PL is not that bad. Maybe a
>    list with all GPL compatible licenses and some other licenses would
>    be a better .. But this is a my 0.02.

Joel N. Weber II <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> What we consider reasonable for software we might install on our own
> computers, vs software we provide hosting for, can certainly be two
> different things.  And if we accept only GPL compatible licenses in
> hosting projects on savannah, this will encourage people to choose GPL
> compatible licenses.

YA way to look at it:

While in one way, we are going to provide a big site that hosts lots of
different projects, in another way, the centralization indicates
something---that it might be useful to look at the projects as a whole,
and see if they are useful together.


If we allow GPL-incompatible software, we will be creating a virtual
minefield for those who might comb this site to find components to use
together.

I believe this "gplsource.fsf.org" (for lack of any other a working title)
should be a site where hackers know they can grab components and combine
them together in useful ways without licensing compatibility worries.

pgpR7ZX9hV0I9.pgp
Description: PGP signature