Boost logo

Boost :

From: Nathan Myers (ncm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-15 14:17:32

On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:44AM -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 05:26 PM 5/14/00 -0700, Nathan Myers wrote:
> >I wonder if it isn't time to move the Boost project off of
> > to somewhere less intrusive and more actively helpful.
> >
> >The Source Forge project sponsored by VA Linux Systems provides
> >not only free mailing lists & archives, but also bug tracking,
> >CVS repositories, automated member surveys, and a project web site,
> >and an ftp area. List mail doesn't get any irritating advertising
> >footers appended.
> >
> >They currently host some 4400 free-software projects.
> >See for more details.
> There are some questions which would have to be answered before we
> could seriously consider SourceForge.
> SourceForge seems limited to "Open Source" projects with specific
> licenses. See While some of
> those licenses (see
> 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.

SourceForge doesn't demand any "standard license agreement". They
host software licensed under all those in the list, and some others
besides. As I understand it, Boost policy is the same. We just
have to clearly identify, for each library, which license it is
released under.

I don't know if Boost has any libraries licensed "free for non-commercial
use"; this would probably be the only one incompatible with Source Forge.
> Am I the only one who is put off by SourceForge's apparent
> argumentative political agenda? Some of their web site material
> seems to come pretty close to out-and-out attacks on commercial
> software in general and Microsoft in particular.

This question leaves me mystified. I couldn't find any "argumentative
political agenda" on the SourceForge site. Maybe you are confusing
it with the "" site? That is run by an entirely
independent organization. SourceForge just references the other
site's list of licenses.
> Does anyone have actual experience participating in a SourceForge
> hosted project? Is it better than eGroups, or just different?

Not putting increasingly obnoxious advertising on the e-mail is
a huge mark in its favor already, even ignoring its many other
> We aren't wedded to eGroups but there isn't any point in moving
> unless some advantage is gained.

The main point (other than obnoxious advertising) is that egroups
is not particularly oriented to free software projects, where
SourceForge emphatically is. They six full-time staff continually
improving its utility for developers.

SourceForge is not dependent on advertising for revenue; rather,
the site advertises its own merits, and VA Linux pays for it by
cloning and maintaining copies of the Source Forge infrastructure
within corporations for their proprietary projects. It is a major
profit center for VA, so they have a real incentive to keep it
working well. In contrast, I suspect egroups is rather a shoestring

Nathan Myers

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at