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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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 06:34:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge Date: 7 Feb 2002 06:34:57 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0202070634.77619f82@posting.google.com> References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1013092497 5634 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2002 14:34:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Feb 2002 14:34:57 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19703 Date: 2002-02-07T14:34:57+00:00 List-Id: Steffen Huber wrote in message news:<3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>... > Hi, > > I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I > told them that the licence used is the GMGPL, and they > refused to host the project because this > licence is not an official OSI licence. Well it just goes to show that the world of free software and open source software is not free of beaurocratic idiocy. The general idea at source forge is to ensure open licenses that permit sufficient minimal capabilities. Obviously it is the case that if you take a permitted license and then give MORE freedom to the licensee it still qualifies, but once people are afflicted by administrator's disease, such obviously truths seem to escape. Why not put it in source forge with BOTH licenses, you just make a header that says that this software is licensed under the GPL or the GMGPL, with the user being able to choose. That should satisfy both goals.