Google Announces Open Source Repository 229
NewsForge (also owned by OSTG) has word of Google's newest product: an open-source project repository. Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier sat down for a talk with Greg Stein and Chris DiBona, who say that the product is very similar to sites like SourceForge but is not intended to compete with them. From the article: "Instead, Stein says that the goal is to see what Google can do with the Google infrastructure, to provide an alternative for open source projects. DiBona says that it's a 'direct result of Greg concentrating on what open source projects need. Most bugtrackers are informed by what corporations' and large projects need, whereas Google's offering is just about what open source developers need. Stein says that Google's hosting has a 'brand new look' at issue tracking that may be of interest to open source projects, and says 'nobody else out there is doing anything close to it.'"
No Public Domain (Score:5, Interesting)
Although its not a license per se, it might be nice to add that option for those projects that choose to go that route.
Re:What the catch? (Score:3, Interesting)
If so, I'd like some of that crack please.
I was going to say that without ads it was nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was looking around http://code.google.com/ [google.com] when I took a look at the "Featured Projects". Pirate Island is a blatent advertisement for Dead Man's Chest, though it looks like a legit project until you go to the site. Google also did some bullshit like that with the Davinci Code too. I don't care if they want to advertise it. I have a big problem when they try to trick their users into thinking it's useful content.
"Sourceforge has the occasional problem" (Score:3, Interesting)
Bring on googleforge.
Re:No Public Domain (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I was going to say that without ads it was nice (Score:1, Interesting)
Why the fuck is this garbage [discoverpirateisland.com] listed in an OSS repository?
Here's a couple of alternative domain names for them:
discoverthegapingsecurityholecalledjavascript.com
discovertheproprietrypluginthatisruiningtheworldw
Read the FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)
http://code.google.com/hosting/faq.html [google.com]
Beating SF ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No Public Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
Public domain isn't the same as open source, open source means the developers retain rights, public domain means you give them all up, public domain can be taken by a stranger and made proprietary, is that really what you want? I suggest you have a little think on that issue.
Google isn't specifically addressing that issue yet, just open source. Perhaps you should submit a request to have public domain added, it is after all only in the initial stages.
Re:No Public Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't reflect on you at all, they can strip your name from the code, there is no obligation to credit you. They might not do this, but they can, and most will (human nature does lean this way as a rule).
Yes, some large projects are public domain, that's their choice. In the case you cite, SQLlite, the project is so large that people would likely notice a complete copy that was proprietary anyway, bringing discredit to any firm claiming to have developed it in house. The other important aspect is that it is a collaborative work, the people involved will almost certainly have personal work as well. It's different if it's all your own code being taken and locked away.
I'd never use public domain, although I allow my code to be extensivelly used by others (ports and derivatives take up a lot of my time, I enjoy the collaboration). I would take issue with people claiming my work as their own (in some cases it represents years of hard work on my part, and I definatelly want credit along with my existing academic priority through publications related to the work), but I have no problem whatso-ever with people supplanting my code with better implementations.
Ok, I don't like public domain much, I'll admit that, but if you want to use it that's your choice, I can do nought but say it's entirely up to you what you do with your own code.
Re:No Public Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
So would I, but if I had enough evidence to successfully sue them for claiming my works as theirs, I could just as easily ridicule them for trying to pass off my work as theirs. And it'd be that much more of a PR disaster for them. That's a very low price to pay for freedom.
Microsoft monopoly a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No Public Domain (Score:1, Interesting)
You've explicitly allowed them to do anything with it, including passing it off as their own.
You could yell from the highest mountain about how they were using your code, and they'd just say "Yes, we know. It was in the public domain, so we used it" There'd be no PR disaster because they hadn't done anything wrong.
No Disclaimer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't it generally policy to note such potential conflicts of interest?
Re:Microsoft monopoly a good thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM don't invest in Linux out of philanthropy, and they don't do it to "get at" Microsoft. They invest because Linux is a huge cash-cow, IBM knows how to milk it, and thus it makes them large amounts of cash. And that's what matters to a big company. They make money, we get something like a billion dollars a year invested in Linux, and everybody's happy.
Except MS. But that's their problem ;o)
Feature I Need: Migrate Project from Sourceforge (Score:3, Interesting)