Launchpad to be free

[Thomas Charron]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: I always speak only for myself, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

  As always, everyone here does.  :-D

  Didn't know that suddenly we needed disclaimers to make that point.

> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's the crux of the complaints against sourceforges TOS ...
>  Yes, I read them.  Which is more than most do, I think.  Witness my
> objection to "proprietary"; they never claim that.  People like to
> parrot statements, though.  So I'm more for discussion than blind
> repetition.

  You're granting them a license to do whatever they like with it,
YOUR license choice be damned.

>> And then, the granting of an entirely new license.  Note the right the
>> 'rent and resell':
>  Renting and reselling Free Software is not prohibited by any of the
> major licenses, as far as I'm aware.  I can't imagine it would be
> terribly successful, given that the code is Free to begin with.  So
> why put such a statement in there?  I can think of a few reasons:
>  (3) Perhaps they think they can make money by syndicating the
> content that isn't part of the code and thus not part of any FOSS
> license, e.g., bug tracking information or mailing lists.  I can't
> speak to the efficacy of such a business plan.  But I also don't see
> much potential for harm.

  Back in the day when they tried released commercial versions, they
indeed attempted such a scheme.  The 'corperate edition' included
source libraries which where harvested from sf.net 'useful libraries'.

>  This isn't meant to excuse SF Inc for their TOS, which are confusing
> and self-contradictory at best, and quite possibly overreaching by the
> standards of many.  But calling it "proprietary" or "non-Free" isn't a
> proportionate reaction.

  I never called it proprietary, someone else did.  Someone who I am
not speaking for.  :-D

  However, it should be noted that while sf exists due to free
software, the sf engine itself isn't free.

>>> ... otherwise running this list might be considered copyright infringement.
>>  Not in the same ballpark as the sourceforge issue.
>  I wasn't aware you were empowered to speak for SourceForge, Inc or GNHLUG.

  I'm not.  However, note the from address.  Hello, that's me!  Pretty
sure I can state my opinion!  I checked, I gave myself permission.

  And I can reiterate the point.  GNHLUG isn't involved in products
which have direct monetary value, so, not in the same ballpark.

-- 
-- Thomas