Talk:SourceForge/Archive 1

Sourceforge.net launch

Hi, browsing wikipedia, I noticed the launch year of Sourceforge.net is a ? in the article. http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=3649 (a republished linux.com article) mentions Coldstorage.org, which became Sourceforge.net and was referred back to by a blog posting about the launch of Sourceforge.net, which would date the launch to late 1999. I hope this helps. 128.214.9.63 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

I've cut this out, can anyone explain what the significant changes where?

A controversy erupted amongst open-source developers in February 2002 when VA significantly modified the terms and conditions of use. A number of developers unsubscribed and moved their projects to other sites such as the GNU Savannah site. Many, however, felt unable to move because of their dependence upon certain features in SourceForge (notably the compile farm).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 August 2002

According to Savannah, "The GForge project is a continuation of the SourceForge project, which was close-sourced by VA Linux in 2001."[1]

GForge itself (and Savane too) should probably have their own pages on Wikipedia, as I think the GForge name is used for both the proprietary and the Free versions. Interestingly, the only reference I can find to it on Wikipedia is at project management software, which lists gforge.org as proprietary. Ojw 18:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Projects hosted on SourceForge

How about this sort of a list. Might be kind of interesting. Or does this sort of list in fact already exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexii (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 August 2004

Current statistics from SourceForge:

• Registered Projects: 100,955
• Registered Users: 1,083,958

I believe this list would be too large to be practical. There are also literally more than 100 clones of Tetris alone. SourceForge front page does give lists of most active and most downloaded projects but these vary over time.85.164.107.7 17:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Google, we have about 372 wikipedia pages about sourceforge projects -- I was just thinking of a category for them, and came here to see if someone had already tried.

Of course, each of those programs will be in about 20 categories already: free software, windows software, mac software, web browsers, programs released in 1996, etc... Ojw 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead we should just include a section on the SourceForge project of the month awards and list those projects. --LaFuchs (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

SourceForge dead?

Is anyone else getting only a banner ad when going to sf.net? I am using Firefox 1.0.6 on Windows XP SP2. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 08:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like invalid HTML rather than a dead website. W3C [2] lists hundreds of errors with the page, though it's just started working again, so maybe there was a particular banner ad which broke it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojw (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 September 2005

Project activity

What does the SourceForge "project activity" (most of the time around 99.xx percent for many projects) mean? --Abdull 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The formula is here. Further down the page it says: The activity percentile for a project is the percentile of that project (0-100%) against all other projects that had a non-zero result for ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.56.49 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The alexandria wiki URL took me to a different page, without that information. For classic SourceForge, this page has Project Activity ranking criteria. It is reasonably up to date, last revision was December 2012. --FeralOink (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sourceforgeproject

Template:Sourceforgeproject has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: There is now Template:SourceForge. --JonnyJD (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

SourceForge

Type of site	Software
Owner	Open Source Technology Group ? Va software?
URL	http://www.sourceforge.net
Registration	Optional

Why was it banned in China?

Everything is in the title --SamiKaero 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Split

I've split this from SourceForge and moved the talk in here. Chris Cunningham 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

I'm proposing redirecting SourceForge to SourceForge.net; see here for discussion and comments. Andareed (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

perpetual proprietary license

From the article: "By uploading code to SourceForge.net, you grant SourceForge a perpetual proprietary license."

Has SourceForge made use of this clause? What are the implications?--Dbolton (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the SourceForge terms of use and it's not real criticism. If you don't want to give SourceForge a perpetual license, don't put your stuff on it. --76.121.174.183 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The criticism header was added recently. I agree that it is not criticism. I am restoring the content without the header (as it used to be for a long time). I think the sentence is still worthy of inclusion in the article.--Dbolton (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can it be sure that this is not just legal talk? Further on section 8; 'LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CODE AND OTHER CONTENT POSTED ON SOURCEFORGE.NET'; of the terms of use, it says some things about the licenses themselves governing use. It seems that its license isn't very friendly to readers. (Here is an discussion), for what it is worth.) 82.169.255.79 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some more useful info on this issue can be found in a ticket on the SourceForge bug tracking system, where an user raised some questions about this licensing issue. As often happens no clear answer was done...: ALoopingIcon (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2076860&group_id=1&atid=200001

Maybe we should somehow make a note of sourceforges response, so both sides are somewhat represented? I don't really know how at this point. 82.169.240.67 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links on this issue. The current reference quotes sourceforge directly so it isn't like we aren't representing sourceforges' side. If Sourceforge has an official response or clarification then that would be worth linking to.--dbolton (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm wondering where the term "proprietary" comes from on this? Perpetual license, sure, but "proprietary" generally seems to refer to ownership, at least according to my dictionary. Even at the worst interpretation, it seems like you're granting SF a license to use your code however they see fit, but they don't own it. They even explicitly state that: "Except for Feedback ... COMPANY claims no ownership or control over any Content." See current TOS. Can we remove the "proprietary" claim? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't their latest revision of the terms of use (October 19, 2009) eliminated this? The footnote in the article says it was retrieved 2008-05-13. 98.247.240.243 (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourceforge.net has become braindamaged?

When looking at project wiki pages at urls like: http://XXXX.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/XXXX First wiki pages themselfes were missing. Now the images are missing. Why??, And when will they get things right? And why is nothing mention of this fact on the wikipedia page? Electron9 (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mismanagement: As of 2008-10-06 all wiki documentation and possibly other functionality has been malfunctioning due an improperly managed service change. No offical reports.

Urls: http://*.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/*

Wikipedia is not the place for bug reports or official news of server problems. I moved the above text from the article to the talk page for discussion--Dbolton (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourceforge logo missing

Shouldn't there be the logo?

http://c.fsdn.com/sf/images//phoneix/splash.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulletxt (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The logo is most likely non-free. --AVRS (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that: fair use is allowed on wikipedia. The problem is closed-minded people... 85.240.125.155 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Requesting move back to original name (a current redirect). The website is by far the entity most closely associated with the name "SourceForge". Since it is redirecting anyway, there is no point to tacking the TLD onto the article name. Previous move request, though not contested (or supported), did not provide any rationale for the current name. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and just move this. Seems to be the trend, as with YouTube and Google, to name two examples. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Once I get the redirect deleted, of course. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, looks like it's been moved already. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's proper to perform a move in the middle of an RM but since it was done, I moved the talk page to match. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Ohloh here

Since Ohloh has been acquired by SourceForge, and it's article is a stub, I think it should be merged here; however, I feel it may not be the general opinion, so, what does everyone else have to say? I don't see the Ohloh article growing much independently, since the site has been announced to be somewhat merged with SourceForge. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, why not leaving it evolve before taking quick decisions like that one? No one can know yet which will be the model SF and Ohloh will choose for the integration, and Ohloh features are announced to keep growing... I believe it is still useful to keep them unmerged --Samer.hc (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ohloh is still a separate site with a different purpose. That would be like merging the Microsoft article with the MSN one; at least in my opinion it is. I'd say put a link from this article to Ohloh and give a brief mention of its acquisition. --ALK (Talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ohloh is still very much a separate site and merging these articles would make no sense at all. Other sites such as Freshmeat and Slashdot are also part of the SourceForge brand and Ohloh is no different. According to SourceForge Acquires Ohloh: "Ohloh's services will continue to improve and expand - and gain a lot more exposure by being part of the SourceForge brand." Tothwolf (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I am also against merging the article at this stage as per the three comments above. --DarTar (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohloh is no longer owned by SourceForge, so no, it has no business being merged here. See the Ohloh page now called Black Duck Open Hub. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

IP blocking the 'Axis of Evil'

Is such reverse-censorship used on other similar projects? It might be interesting to add a connection, sources supported. --Leladax (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hacking attempts on SourceForge.net

Hello, I've added a section titled as above. please discuss if anything seems "MissSplled"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missspelled (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned countries and controversy

I understand that since about last year, if a project admin chooses that projects does not contain encryption, then it's possible to download this project from any country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.201.241 (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

History of SourceForge

The history of SourceForge is missing. Including who owns and owned SourceForge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.201.241 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

notability claim versus source

The lede states "It was the first to offer that service for free to open source projects", however the given source does not state "first". It merely discusses in general terms the beginning of SourceForge. The startup date for this is "November 1999", a year and a half after the "open source" term was coined. TEDickey (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Still, the article implies that there was no comparable service at the time which might justify the statement that it was the first. Otherwise, we could change it to "one of the first" but I think we should probably leave it the way it is. Greetings --hroest 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A specific quote (the article is short) would help support the "implies". This sentence "And the site would be – in the spirit of 1999 – totally free of charge." could easily be interpreted to contradict your statement. TEDickey (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is SourceForge a Paas ?

Or is it just a project management tool ?

I try to understand what a PaaS is. PaaS = Platform as a Service

Thierry (FR), 12 june 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.100.123 (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)