SourceForge vs Yahoo

[MisterX]

it's probably changed now but this was yahoo's agreement..

By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, or
warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo 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.

im not posting a single bit there...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: metacard-admin at lists.runrev.com
> [mailto:metacard-admin at lists.runrev.com]On Behalf Of Robert Brenstein
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 02:45
> To: metacard at lists.runrev.com
> Subject: SourceForge vs Yahoo
>
>
> There seems to be a split between going with Yahoo or SourceForge for
> development. I have been in a few yahoo groups as well as on
> sourceforge for a while. Yahoo groups definitely get hacked once a
> while, although spamming there is not such a big deal for me since I
> get tons of spam anyway. More annoying are waves of complaints from
> group members that follow. In my mind, sourceforge seems to be more
> suitable for this project because of its developer orientation. It
> has a number of areas that we may (but are not required to) use. And
> we don't need an advanced setup to begin with.
>
> In particular, we can use the "files" area for simple html-based
> downloads of distribution files. CVS is needed only for controlling
> the development codes by making it easier to coordinate efforts and
> keeping track of who is doing what and when.
>
> Yes, we do not really have to use CVS, but if we want to use it, we
> could split IDE into individual stacks and/or groups of scripts to
> facilitate development by multiple people. We would need an
> "assembler" that would put a proper IDE from those components for
> testing and distribution, but that should be a trival thing within MC.
>
> The "Tracker" and "RFE" areas may become handy to follow up on who is
> doing what on the long-term. With a small and persistent group as
> ours is now this might be an overkill but it may allow those less
> involved to see what's going on and possibly contribute. It just
> frees you Richard from having to track things offline.
>
> Here is a simple info page from another open source project I am
> involved to some degree. I followed the instructions there and had no
> problems fetching the sources, although admitedly the cvs stuff is
> somewhat unintuitive.
>
> http://www.machttp.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=i
ndex&req=viewarticle&artid=2&page=1

One thing that was not discussed on the list, or I have missed it
somehow, is the official web site for MC IDE. SourceForge will not
suffice if we want to make IDE available to more general public.
MetaCard's web site would be a perfect place since this basically
will be continuation of MetaCard as it was to us, but I wonder
whether Scott would let us use it and what plans he has for that site
on the long term. A corner on Rev's site could suffice, but then we
would probably have to go through Rev to post anything since it would
be part of their corporate web site. I think having a mention and
link there would be better for us.

Robert
_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
metacard at lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard