SourceForge policy on http://sourceforge.net/tos/tos.php

> I'm just curious: why do we need GBorg at all? Does it offer anything
> that SourceForge, or a similar service does not offer?

SAY NO TO SOURCEFORGE !

Please find enclosed some extracts from licensing terms
(http://sourceforge.net/tos/tos.php) :

a) Acceptance of Terms

"We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add or remove
portions of these terms periodically. Such modifications shall be effective
immediately upon posting of the modified agreement to the website. Your
continued use of the SourceForge.net website following the posting of changes
to these terms and conditions will mean that you accept those changes."

-> My point of view : SourceForge has an unlimited right to change the content
of the TOS. A simpe post of the modified TOS is sufficient. For example, they
may at any time charge access to their web site.

b) Licensing of code

"In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge.net the
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable
right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate,
create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content
(in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any
form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the
terms of any applicable approved license."

-> My point of view : More surprisingly, SourceForge owns all content posted
on SourceForge. For legal reasons, SF licensing agreement is subject to the
terms of any applicable approved license. But, the words *** or later
development *** are thrilling.

c) Termination

"We may terminate a user's account in our absolute discretion and for any
reason. We are especially likely to terminate for reasons that include, but
are not limited to, the following: 1.) violation of these Terms; 2.) abuse of
site resources or attempt to gain unauthorized entry to the site or site
resources; 3.) use of Service in a manner inconsistent with the Purpose; 4.)
a user's request for such termination; and 5.) requirement of applicable law,
regulation, court or governing agency order.

-> My point of view : As a consequence, SourceForge does not allow a user to
unregister from SourceForge. I tried to unregister a project from SF, without
success. Why? Because SF owns the (your) project rights.

d) Incompatibility with local european laws

This contract does not comply with the European laws :

- SF may change the licensing terms at any time, without limitation of the
future modified clauses. In the European Union, you cannot grant an
***unlimited right*** on your ***future and undefined*** work without a
***defined counterpart*** (example=a salary).

- In French law, an author right is devided in two separate rights : the owner
right and the moral right. Every author (or community of authors) owns a
moral right on his/her work, even after the selling of rights. It has several
consequences which I wron't bother you with (even in RedHat attitude = the
renaming of a software is unmoral, bacause it makes you believe RedHat is the
original author of PostgreSQL).

e) SourceForge is a closed-source service

SourceForge migrated (=rewrote) their database server-side code from
PostgreSQL to Oracle, mainly for legal reasond. This new work gives them the
ability to change licences.

As a consequence, SF did not release their code for a year or so. SF can now
be considered as a closed-source service.

f) I would discourage anyone from registering on SourceForge. Any organization
is meant to be created, to live ... and die. Microsoft, Oracle and
SourceForge will probably die sooner or later.

On the other hand, open-source project provider, like Savannah or better
GBOrg, which are owned by non-profit organization or individuals releasing
their source code under the GNU, will never die. This make a huge difference.

Now, what if Microsoft purchased OSDN? What would be the consequences?

Cheers,
Jean-Michel