From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-07 07:24:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news-x2.support.nl!news.csl-gmbh.net!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!62.154.176.138!not-for-mail From: Steffen Huber Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:23:42 +0100 Organization: private Message-ID: <3C629BFE.4FF05768@gmx.de> References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de> Reply-To: steffen.huber@gmx.de NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.154.176.138 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1013095458 45685142 62.154.176.138 (16 [82308]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19712 Date: 2002-02-07T16:23:42+01:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: > On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:25:08 +0100, Steffen Huber wrote: [snip] Many thanks for your suggestions. > > So now I am faced with a few alternatives: > > 1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas? > > The FSF foundation have made their own after sourceforge made their code > propetarian (ironic). I think perhaps SF only wants projects that are > free and for propetarian > > http://savannah.gnu.org/ > > I don't know it this only works for GNU projects though, you must check > that. I just had a look. They seem to accept everything as long as it is a "GPL compatible licence", which the GMGPL obviously is. Now I am trying to find out if there is something vital missing from Savannah that SourceForge provides. They seem to be based on the same code... Did GNU ever promote Savannah? I never heard of it before. > > 2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence - > > has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first > > one to try? > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses I will try. Thanks for the link. > > 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried > > that? > > We should do that. I cannot see why it shouldn't be accepted. And it > would be nice to have it on the list. Now who is "we" ;-) I would prefer if someone whose first language is English does it and who knows the GPL and the GMGPL well enough. > > 4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another > > name and is already OSI approved - any ideas? > > You can do like the GNADE project did: > > http://gnade.sourceforge.net/#download Interesting approach I have to say. However, I think the approach is not 100% "clean" - after all, the SourceForge page tells me that the Licence used is GPL. Steffen -- steffen.huber@gmx.de steffen@huber-net.de GCC for RISC OS - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/ Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/