From: Paul Baxter (paul_baxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-15 10:32:25
> There are some questions which would have to be answered before we
> could seriously consider SourceForge.
> ISourceForge seems limited to "Open Source" projects with specific
> licenses. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. While some of
> those licenses (see
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html) are pretty
> close to the various boost licenses, we would have to be very sure we
> were willing to make the leap to a standard license agreement.
From their FAQ:
Who can host with SourceForge?
We're trying to keep it simple, and chose to rely on the work of a very
talented group, the Open Source Initiative. If your software utilizes one of
the OSI's approved licenses, we'd love to offer you hosting at SourceForge.
Software that falls under other licenses will require further scrutiny, but
is not altogether ruled out. In the end, we're looking to further Open
Source software development, and will approve projects accordingly.
I think Boost would qualify if you wanted it to be submitted, but I would
hate to see Boost restrict itself to any one of the licenses. The principle
of freely accessable code for commercial or non-commercial use is a must.
A single standard license may put someone off due to some minor esoteric
point. I'd hate that to happen.
> Does anyone have actual experience participating in a SourceForge
> hosted project? Is it better than eGroups, or just different?
I participate in a couple, and have set up another just to see how good it
Fairly smooth, but not necessarily worth it (yet?) for Boost, IMHO
Since the project is not likely to happen for a while, if Beman wants a nose
around the project options without the hassle of creating a dummy project,
let me know in private email.
> We aren't wedded to eGroups but there isn't any point in moving
> unless some advantage is gained.
At present, apart from my desire to access the vault files more easily, I
see very little to gain from moving over.
IMHO While I found the set-up fairly easy, only if you intend to actually
use cvs or the bug tracker will it become a worthwhile to go through the
At present things are ticking along nicely without too much of a burden on
Perhaps versioning of the boost files may be a useful feature in the future
(via cvs?) since although information is available on the list, it can often
be difficult to trace a change and the reasons for doing it. (my memory
isn't all it could be!)
My vote goes for keeping with the current situation even though I have found
egroups unresponsive to tech support questions (why I went to sourceforge in
the first place.). If it ain't broke...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk