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

Jean-Michel POURE <jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr> writes:

> 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.

This is standard legalities. They are a corporate entity; if there is
a gap that leaves them liable for someone else's actions, they have to
either be able to update their TOS -- or they must stop providing the
service.

> 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.

That is simply their legal way of saying "You may only publish 'open
source' software and content on SourceForge" -- which is made clear
when you sign up for a new project anyway. If you want them to
distribute your software over the Internet, why do you care if they
later distribute it over Planetnet? (The "in any ... technology
... later developed" does not scare me.) You must choose which
license to use; if you do not want to use any of the approved
licenses, *then* you might not want to use SourceForge.

> 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.

Your project has nothing to do with their ability to terminate
accounts. When I tried to unregister a project from SF, it took
months, but they eventually did it. Maybe it helped that we were just
renaming the project to something else on SF and had already moved the
CVS tree.

> 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).

Where does it say SF may change the licensing terms? If you do not
want them to change the licensing terms much, you can do something
like using GPL instead of BSD. Neither do they claim any right at all
on your future work, unless you send those works to them -- "Licensing
of code" merely says that once you send them something, they have an
unlimited right to use and redistribute it.

> - 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).

This is partially a license issue, and partially an international law
issue, but it has little bearing on whether one uses SourceForge or
not; *any* user of the code can exercise the same rights. You say
below that you prefer Savannah over SourceForge, but Savannah does
little enough to acknowledge that their code is based on SourceForge's
code. Why criticize RedHat for doing the same thing?

> 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.

Last time I checked, SourceForge 2.5 and before were still GPLed, and
some people do work to maintain it. However, use of a service is
different than licensing software. Google is closed source -- do you
refuse to use the services they provide?

> 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.

Microsoft, Oracle, SourceForge, and the FSF can all die, yes.

> 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.

Why not? People get hit by busses. Organizations lose favor, or run
low on funding, and eventually go away too. Licensing and wide
distribution of the code is what guarantees it will never die, not the
mass distributor(s).

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

What if Microsoft hired all of the Postgres committers? (Empty
questions can be easily turned around, so it is better to be specific
in your concerns.)

Michael Poole