[Chicago-talk] Open Source project hosting
shlomif at iglu.org.il
Sat May 23 01:27:21 PDT 2009
On Friday 22 May 2009 23:02:18 Michael Potter wrote:
> Here is what I ended up doing:
> For the original project I am pretty sure I am using code.google.com.
> I am collaborating with some Mainframers and they want to use SVN
> because that meshes well with the companion projects that my project
> will support.
Just to add to what other people are saying, here are a few more options for
hosting FOSS projects:
1. http://developer.berlios.de/ - supports CVS, Subversion, git and Mercurial
and gives other services like a web-site (under $myproject.berlios.de),
bug/issue trackers (the SourceForge.net ones which I'm not very fond of),
downloads, etc. It's very similar to SourceForge.
I've been happily using it for most of the projects that I initiated. It has
its problems. I recall a few outages with it, but lately it's been OK. Someone
I talked with said that berlios.de sucked and that SF.net/Google-Code/github
were better, but he didn't give any concrete reasons for why it sucked.
2. http://opensvn.csie.org/ - Subversion-only hosting with bare-essentials.
Used to give trac, but I'm no longer sure that they still do.
3. http://launchpad.net/ - the Ubuntu-blessed software-development hub.
Provides Bazaar-VCS-hosting, a bug tracker and similar services.
4. There are services similar to github for Mercurial, etc.
> Anyway, looking at github.com did inspire me to put stringent.sh as a
> project on github.
> stringent.sh is the library of functions that turns on the features of
> bash that enhance robustness.
> Does anyone have a comment on what license I should use for stringent.sh?
> I really do not care what people do with it so I am inclined to use
> the MIT license.
Well, software licences have been a source of common debate in the open-source
world for a long time, so I'd hope this won't escalate into a full-fledged
licences' war. That put aside, the MIT/X11 Licence is the licence that I
favour for my original software. I used to prefer the Public Domain, but
became aware that the concept is problematic, especially for software, and the
MIT/X11 Licence is very close and less disputed.
One benefit of the X11L is that it gives you or any future contributors the
ability to sub-license the code under a different licence in the future,
should the need arise.
I wrote more about "Licences Wars" here:
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Stop Using MSIE - http://www.shlomifish.org/no-ie/
God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we
More information about the Chicago-talk