[Coco] sourceforge insurance

[RETRO Innovations]

On 6/16/2015 5:10 PM, Tormod Volden wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM, RETRO Innovations wrote:
>>    
> The community reacted and SF listened and changed course.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/blog/sourceforge-past-present-and-future-working-to-maintain-the-integrity-of-our-open-source-backbone/
Fair enough.  I'd have led off with this, as it's probably the best 
rebuttal of the initial concerns raised.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/discussion/communityvoice/thread/7e269a18/
>
> We don't know what SF will do in the future, but we don't know what
> github/etc will do in the future either.
I concur.  And, since they've offered up a mea culpa, I agree the 
current discussion is moot.
> What I do approve of, is that SF is run on open-source software. For
> example github is a proprietary, closed-source service. By using
> github you are approving of such actions. Dependency on proprietary,
> closed-source software, on either side of the http connection, will
> always come back to bite you. Whether this is important to the whole
> nitros9 community I don't know. Those who do the work get to decide.
I'd be hypocritical if I did not agree in principle.  In reality, I am 
probably more pragmatic.  (RMS and I would not get along).  All things 
being equal, I'll choose the FLOSS option over the Closed Source model.  
But, often, things are not equal.  If SF had not amended their 
direction, I'd still favor a closed source solution that supported open 
source protocols.  In essence, if I can connect to my data and export it 
out of the solution using FLOSS tools, I'm comfortable.  I'd obviously 
be more comfy if they were FLOSS, but Life(tm) does not often provide 
that utopia.

Jim