Articles / Gna!, A New Host for Libre ...

Gna!, A New Host for Libre Software Development

A new software hosting platform is available, and we are spreading the word. Dear Free Software friends,

Gna!, a self-organized development hosting facility, is now available to all Libre Software developers and users at http://gna.org/. It was created in January 2004 and is offering the same services as Savannah (http://savannah.gnu.org/) and SourceForge (http://sf.net/).

Philosophically, Gna! follows the lead of the Free Software Foundation. Projects hosted on Gna! will be distributed under licensing terms compatible with each other so that they can be mixed freely. Running these projects on your own machine will not require any non-free software.

"Self-organized" means that Gna! is run by its users. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the maintenance of the hardware and software platform. Entering the Gna! maintainers team can happen within the hour; propose your membership, answer support requests if you can, provide a patch to implement the feature you want. No contribution will be ignored or discarded, and if you make a mistake, we rely on you to fix it.

Because Gna! is philosophically and technically compatible with Savannah, we've started to implement an import/export procedure so that projects can move freely between Gna! and Savannah. The compromise of Savannah last year showed that it is critical to have many Free Software development facilities where projects can be backed up easily.

Happy hacking!

RSS Recent comments

11 Feb 2004 06:46 eyck

Subversion
You're talking about need for diversification, yet it's basically identical clone of savvannah, some features like for example svn instead of cvs would help with differentiating those sites.

11 Feb 2004 11:20 scdbackup

Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
In this freshmeat editorial the statement is quite harmless :
"Projects hosted on Gna! will be distributed under licensing terms compatible with each other so that they can be mixed"

But at the Gna! site it is a different one :
"We will only host programs with GPL-compatible licensing terms"

I am publishing under BSD license (because it is short, honest, gives full freedom) and therefore i would be rejected, right ?
Well, i wouldn't call that liberte (avec accent aigue).

I do support the idea of distinguishing between free software and free add-ons to proprietary software. But discriminating all open source license types other than GPL is quite absurd. (Just in case the gna! people don't know: a BSD license may be combined with any other license. It is neither contageous nor hampering in any way.)

11 Feb 2004 11:58 segoave

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> I am publishing under BSD license
> (because it is short, honest, gives full
> freedom) and therefore i would be
> rejected, right ?

The BSD license is GPL compatible (www.gnu.org/philosophy...).

Unless you are using the original BSD license with the obnoxious advertising clause. But even the Regents aren't using that anymore.

That said, IMHO all free software licenses should be allowed, not just GPL compatible

11 Feb 2004 12:47 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> The BSD license is GPL compatible.
> Unless you are using the original BSD
> license with the obnoxious advertising
> clause.

Let me see : "Neither ... may be used to endorse
or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission".
Would that be ok ?
I like best the DO-NOT-BLAME-ME part.

Now what exactly is considered to be GPL compatible ?
Is it that you can grab a copy of the software into GPL ?
Then BSD would be GPL compatible, indeed.
Or is it that the license follows compatible
intentions and therefore no change is necessary in
the components' licenses ?
In that case, i fear, BSD would not go with GPL.

> That said, IMHO all free software
> licenses should be allowed, not just GPL
> compatible

I support that.

To be clear about my reason to object the demand
for GPL compatibility : i got no grudge against a
GPL-only site. I just expected something else from
the french term "Libre".

11 Feb 2004 14:20 nroberts

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> The BSD license is GPL compatible.

Ahhh, but the GPL is not BSD compatable!

That kills the advertised goal of having projects that are license compatable with each other so that they can be mixed. If indeed that is the goal then either:

a) you can only allow GPL programs - not even LGPLed ones because GPLed code can not be LGPLed.

or

b) you must disallow the use of the GPL and other licenses that are not compatable with the others.

Practically speaking it is kind of pointless and not very diplomatic to do either, but in so not doing you cannot possibly meet the claimed goal.

NR

11 Feb 2004 15:01 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

%...
> a) you can only allow GPL programs - not
> even LGPLed ones because GPLed code can
> not be LGPLed.
>
> or
>
> b) you must disallow the use of the GPL
> and other licenses that are not
> compatable with the others.
%...
> NR

That's an interesting aspect. A consequence of
looking at the problem from a legal point of view.
The whole concept becomes unusable that way.

Maybe one could find more sense in defining
practical goals but that would end in a (another)
general definition of open source freedom.

A modest proposal for a completely different
approach. Like :
"Licenses are subject to peer review in order to
ensure proper coexistence. Authors should be open
to proposals how this coexistence can be achieved."

It is a bit nebulous, i confess. But it would
postpone compatibility discussions until there is
a real occasion for such.

11 Feb 2004 20:38 timecop

invalid certificate
wow, why would I trust my project to these guys, they can't even afford to pay for a valid security certificate.

And, how does that place plan to make money?

And look at that horrible web design.
tables are so 1998.

12 Feb 2004 01:01 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

>
> for GPL compatibility : i got no grudge
> against a
> GPL-only site. I just expected something
> else from
> the french term "Libre".
>


Do not talk about GPL-only when you are aware it is about
GPL-compatibility.

The French term "Libre" refers to freedom, and freedom is
always a matter of degree, not a whole in itself.
A clear example of that is the fact that the freedom to rape
any girl in the street is not (usually in European countries
including France, at least) given. I do not think such freedom
should be given because it harms people. I do not think that
position made me an awful dictator.

The rationale behind this restriction at Gna! is pretty
obvious: hosting projects that cannot be mixed together is
contradictory with the Libre Software purpose.

The title of the thread is an obvious FUD: nobody is forced
to be hosted at Gna!, like nobody is forced to do Libre
Software.



12 Feb 2004 01:07 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
You apparently do not have a clue of what you are talking
about.

I strongly suggest that you read the following page to know
more about the subject:
www.gnu.org/philosophy...

Mixing software does not means relicensing software.

12 Feb 2004 01:17 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> A modest proposal for a completely
> different
> approach. Like :
> "Licenses are subject to peer review in
> order to
> ensure proper coexistence. Authors
> should be open
> to proposals how this coexistence can be
> achieved."
>
> It is a bit nebulous, i confess. But it
> would
> postpone compatibility discussions until
> there is
> a real occasion for such.
>


What means GPL-compatibility apart from "peer review in
order to ensure proper coexistence"?

There is no real need to postpone compatibility discussion.
Gna! support the GNU project and so, there is no point in
hosting project whose source code cannot be mixed with a
project released under the GNU GPL, the preferred license
of the GNU project. It is not like if the whole issue was new.
It is not like if there was no obvious solution to ensure
compatibility.

If you want to ensure compatibility between project, you
indeed have to choose a license standard. And considering
who we are, the choice is pretty obvious to us. It would be
very strange to pick as standard a license different than the
one we use for good reasons.

Most new licenses take care about GPL-compatibility (PHP,
Apache, etc...), even if the compatibility is sometimes
discussed and do not reach a consensus, so I do not think
we are closing the door to Libre Software projects. It is not
hard to find a suitable GPL-compatible license. Apart from
GPL restrictive-like licenses and modified BSD like
licenses, what Libre Software licenses exists?






12 Feb 2004 02:28 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> You apparently do not have a clue of
> what you are talking
> about.

Thank you for your kind relpy, Sir.
May i direct you to another editorial here which
deals with this kind of behavior ?
freshmeat.net/articles...

12 Feb 2004 02:54 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> Do not talk about GPL-only when you are
> aware it is about
> GPL-compatibility.

First : Please do not tell me what to talk about.
(Ok, this is emotional. I apologize but have to
insist in defending my freedom of speech.)
Second : i pointed out a discrepancy between the
announcement of gna! and the license info on the
website. Is there a reply to this contained in
the posts of yours ?
Third: Would you be willing just to define what
is meant with "GPL-compatibility" ?
Your statement :
"What means GPL-compatibility apart from 'peer
review in order to ensure proper coexistence'"
published on the gna! website would be clarifying.
I have to confess, though, that i never got the
impression that GPL is about coexistence of
license models.

12 Feb 2004 03:49 scdbackup

updating : Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
What i learned up to now :

> therefore i [BSD license] would be rejected, right ?
%...
> But discriminating all open source license
> types other than GPL is quite absurd.

There is an official list of GPL-compatible
licenses.(provided by Mathieu Roy : www.gnu.org/philosophy... )

Mine would be among them. Therefore my statements
quoted above are wrong. Sorry. It was not intentional.

I nevertheless uphold my complaint about missing
clarity and directness. (A hyperlink at gna.org/about/
probably would have helped me in learning quicker.)

Additionally i now wonder wether GPL-compatibility
really ensures what would be needed for free
combinability of software :
Can i expect GPL authors to be open for allowing
me to copy (small) parts of their code into my BSD
licensed stuff ?
(No, i do not want to just switch to GPL. I got
my reasons and i stay with BSD license.)

Not at least : my best wishes to gna!
I'm picking on details, not on your idea of
hosting free software or your preference to GPL.
As a user, i am very fond of GPL. :)

12 Feb 2004 04:25 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
First: I am not trying to reduce your freedom of speech. I am
asking you to argue on the real topic. Arguing about a
GPL-only policy at Gna! is off-topic as there is no such
policy.

Second: There is no real discrepancy. The
GPL-compatibility requirement for program projects is how
we can pretend that hosted projects "will be distributed
under licensing terms compatible with each other so that
they can be mixed freely".

Third: GPL-compatibility is not a vague concept, it relates to
the studies made by different persons on how licenses are
compatible. At gnu.org, a license list present
GPL-compatible licenses.

12 Feb 2004 04:37 mathieur

Am I reading cosmo?
I guess you are the one that submitted a user request on the
topic:
mail.gna.org/public/he...
or it's your brother.




Same reply:



The https presence at Gna! is to secure users accounts and
activities. Not proving that we are nice guys because we
spent a big sum of money for a certificate from Verisign.



What are you afraid of?




You talk about "And, how does that place plan to make
money?". Who ever talked about such a plan?




Finally, about "tables are so 1998", I'd like ask you how old
are you? If you are not happy with something in a Free
Software project, you can offer help or submit bug. About
table, I can tell you that you would get a wontfix within the
hour, as the primary matter is functionality, not following the
trends of webdesign. In the past (not years ago), table were
the only way to do complicated arrangements. Now there
are faster and cleaner methods. It does not mean that the
previous method are plain stupid and working no more.
Take a look at
the source code of the page you are currently browsing.




12 Feb 2004 04:44 zerodeux

Re: invalid certificate
This site is about setting people and software Free, it's not really about money. Hardware has been bought with FSF France moeny (ie. donations), bandwidth is offered by a friendly company, and people working on it use their spare time.

The HTML layout is indeed old style, we would be really glad if you could help us to fix this. Simply check the Savane project at gna.org/projects/savane and have a try !

12 Feb 2004 05:54 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

Hum, there is a confusion here, I was not replying to you
(check the
threading - it is not obvious I admit it) but to Noah Roberts
writing "Ahhh, but the GPL is not BSD compatable", " That
kills the advertised goal of having projects that are license
compatable with each other so that they can be mixed. If
indeed that is the goal then either: you can only allow GPL
programs - not even LGPLed ones because GPLed code
can not be LGPLed", two statements that are completely
erroneous.


The GPL _is_ compatible with the modified BSD-style
licenses. It is incompatible with the original BSD license that
nobody use any longer. I would not have replied to Noah so
harshly if he were not himself replying to a mail from
segoave that give full information about the issue. But Noah
did, he clearly completely disregarded information provided
by segoave without bring any evidences of what he said (I
never seen something pretending that mBSD-like are not
GPL-compatible).


Also, Noah claimed that only GPL programs can be mixed
together because GPLed code be LGPLed: he completely
disregarded the concept of compatibility. It is not about
relicensing GPL software to LGPL, but about being able to
mix GPL projects and LGPL projects.


For these reasons, I considered that Noah talks about
things he have no clue about, and I suggested him to check
the gnu.org license page that will give him appropriate
informations.

12 Feb 2004 05:54 mathieur

Re: updating : Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
About included GPLed code inside an modified-BSDed
project: the author of the GPLed code may allow you to
relicense the code. If he does not, you will still be able to
reuse the code, but under the terms of the GPL.
If you cannot accept the terms of the GPL, you'll have to do
without the GPLed code. However, your project being
compatible from a license point of view with the GPL code,
anyone that have no problem accepting the terms of the
GPL will be able legally to mix your project and this GPL
code. That's the whole point. It is not about relicensing but
just being legally to mix projects.


About your wishes, thanks :)

12 Feb 2004 06:48 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

>
> Hum, there is a confusion here, I was
> not replying to you
> (check the
> threading - it is not obvious I admit
> it) but to Noah Roberts

So you inadvertedly directed me to that list too.
I think my link for you is still worthwhile to be
visited.

12 Feb 2004 08:38 scdbackup

Re: updating : Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
Somehow in my little mind i dreamt of a world
where one could link GPL code and non-GPL code.
I just looked at the GPL as published at
www.gnu.org/licenses/g... :
I read the paragraph after 2c ("These requirements
... regardless of who wrote it.") still as the
old stickiness clause.

The sentence on
www.gnu.org/philosophy...
"Whether it is compatible with the
GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module
which was released under that license with a
GPL-covered module to make one larger program.)"
looks positive. But how does it match with above
paragraph ? I fear it means "larger GPL program".

Tell me i'm wrong.
(Now i'm sitting here waiting for a wonder to happen.)

> About your wishes, thanks :)

No grudge then :)

12 Feb 2004 08:54 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
Looking up the thread ...

Anybody willing to write an editoral how to
write editorial comments which do not cause
unnecessary quarrel ? Looks like i could need it.

:O)

12 Feb 2004 09:56 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

>
> I think my link for you is still
> worthwhile to be
> visited.
>


It would be if Noah was reporting a problem, while I still think
that he was just telling nonsense. It sound harsh but how
can't it be? Clearly, what Noah said was wrong as it is
fascinating that he were replying to a message that was
proving him wrong. In other words, if he had read the
message he was replying to, he would not have posted the
message as it is.


12 Feb 2004 12:30 stic

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

>
> %
> % I think my link for you is still
> % worthwhile to be
> % visited.
> %
>
> It would be if Noah was reporting a
> problem, while I still think that he was just
> telling nonsense. It sound harsh but how
> can't it be? Clearly, what Noah said was
> wrong as it is fascinating that he were
> replying to a message that was
> proving him wrong. In other words, if he
> had read the message he was replying to, he
> would not have posted the message as it is.

Try to see it as a buggy bug report.
I made a mistake too with that headline
"Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?"
which reflected my mood but partially missed my
point.

Tracey's editorial offers a nicely matching point
for this (See "&!*#*&... We've said a million times ...").
You were right with the facts about GPL-compatibility
simply because i was not aware that it is a well
defined term in the GNU philosophy meanwhile.
I was even stubborn enough not to realize that
segoave pointed me to the "modified BSD" item of
that list. I should have scrolled up to read the
headline.
Typical case of RTFM. Sigh.

So my currently best proposal for a reply to my
own poorly funded complaint would be :

"No fear. See www.gnu.org/philosophy...;

That doesn't solve my general problems with GPL
and it doesn't solve your general problems with
people critizising about GPL. So the source of
our emotions is still well and alive.

But it would have kept li'l gna! out of our
psycho-computational problems. :))

12 Feb 2004 15:16 scdbackup

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

Oops. Now i was wearing the wrong hat when
replying. Both "stic" and "scdbackup" are
project identities of the same person, me, Thomas.

12 Feb 2004 18:21 auknight

Project Goal?
The compromise of Savannah last year showed that it is critical to have many Free Software development facilities where projects can be backed up easily.

So is the only real aim of Gna! to act as a look-alike clone of Savannah (which is mostly what it looks like now), or do you plan on providing services above and beyond what Savannah and/or Sourceforge do?

More simply, is there any reason why I as a developer should host my project on Gna! other than just to provide another back-up in case Sourceforge/Savannah is compromised/burnt down/what-have-you?

14 Feb 2004 17:12 kemuri

Europe
As far as I see from the traceroute: it's in Europe! :)
And for me that's an extra reason to move from sourceforge.
It's good to have something closer to home!

18 Feb 2004 10:27 nroberts

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> You apparently do not have a clue of
> what you are talking
> about.
>
> I strongly suggest that you read the
> following page to know
> more about the subject:
> www.gnu.org/philosophy...

Hmmm...that is nice, it is a list of GPL-compatable licenses and does not address what I said in my post. Perhapse instead of just saying, "You're full of sh!t," you would like to back up that claim by directly countering one of mine. You might also want to reread my post because I was not talking about BSD being compatable with GPL but GPL being compatable with BSD. It is not a two way street.

NR

18 Feb 2004 10:39 nroberts

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

%It is not about
> relicensing GPL software to LGPL, but
> about being able to
> mix GPL projects and LGPL projects.

You cannot take GPLed source code and use it in a BSD licensed project. This makes the GPL incompatable with BSD.

You also cannot use GPLed source code in an LGPLed project. Otherwise you would be able to create minor changes to a GPLed project, licence the whole thing under LGPL, and then create proprietery additions so long as you only link to the new sublicensed project. So, rightfully so, the GPL is not compatable with the LGPL.

You can, on the other hand, use BSDed source code in a project licensed under GPL. This makes the BSD compatable with the GPL.

If you can assert that either of the first 2 statements are false, and show that they are indeed false, then you are right and I am full of crap. Otherwise it is you who is overloaded with bovine excriment.

NR

20 Feb 2004 05:27 mathieur

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
% Perhapse instead of just saying, "You're

> full of sh!t,"

Using quotes when you are not actually quoting is dishonnest: it misleadingly looks like you are reporting the exact opinion of someone, by using his own words, while it is actually solely your words and your interpretation.

%You might also want to reread my

%post because I was not talking about BSD

> being compatable with GPL but GPL being

%compatable with BSD. It is not a two

%way street.

I think you have a strange understanding of the concept of compatibility. How strangely did you reached the conclusion that a compatibility can be unilateral?

23 Feb 2004 10:32 nroberts

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> %You might also want to reread my
> %post because I was not talking about
> BSD
> % being compatable with GPL but GPL
> being
> %compatable with BSD. It is not a two
> %way street.
>
> I think you have a strange understanding
> of the concept of compatibility. How
> strangely did you reached the conclusion
> that a compatibility can be unilateral?

You still seem incapable of actually countering my statements but instead only attack them without providing any insight. I can only conclude that you haven't really thought about the subject enough to come up with a logical oppinion. Your attacks show nothing but an emotional response to an argument you don't understand. Therefor I have no reason to believe you know what you are talking about.

To make my point clear:

How about if I take the function cal_days_count from cal.inc.php in annif and paste it into a program I am writing that is licensed under the BSD and release the entire work as a BSDed program. The fact is that I cannot, and you should know this, which means that the GPL is not BSD compatable.

Have a nice day.

BTW, putting a statement in quotes is only dishonest if it is a citation. If you want to get wierd about those quotes then it is only your problem because I did not cite. I was writing informally and if you want to think about it formally you are still simply blowing smoke. Try and come up with a real, concrete, and objective reason why I am wrong instead of just attacking and pointing out informalisms in a nonformal environment.

NR

23 Feb 2004 10:38 nroberts

Re: updating : Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> About included GPLed code inside an
> modified-BSDed
> project: the author of the GPLed code
> may allow you to
> relicense the code. If he does not, you
> will still be able to
> reuse the code, but under the terms of
> the GPL.

That means the GPL is not BSD compatable. Since you just said the same thing I did, I fail to see how you can claim I don't know what I am talking about.

NR

09 Apr 2004 11:37 metasploit

Re: Project Goal?
Savannah has stopped accepting new project requests for the last five months; I submitted a project in January and have yet to receive an official response.

> So is the only real aim of Gna! to act
> as a look-alike clone of Savannah (which
> is mostly what it looks like now), or do
> you plan on providing services above and
> beyond what Savannah and/or Sourceforge
> do?

08 May 2004 01:35 knifemakers

Re: Subversion

> You're talking about need for
> diversification, yet it's basically
> identical clone of savvannah, some
> features like for example svn instead of
> cvs would help with differentiating
> those sites.
>
>

I must agree with you, having something as simple as svn instead of cvs would help.

12 May 2004 09:48 djobet

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?
Here's a guy who comes and proposes resources (free hosting, cvs access, arch repositories, ...). To be allowed to use these resources, like everyone, you have to respect terms of use.
Nobody's telling you you must adhere to the project. There's nothing mandatory.

Instead of saying "thank you" for proposing such a service, you're basically attacking that guy on the terms of use.
If the only thing you want is trolling on license issues, then pass your way, nobody needs you.

30 Jun 2004 22:34 brianko

Re: I didn't realize making money was the purpose

> And, how does that place plan to make

> money?

I realize this is probably a troll, but I'll respond anyway: One of the major reasons why I've moved my projects from SF to Gna is that the blatant commercialism and begging for money on SF has simply gotten out of hand. You can't even do an advanced search on SF without being a paid subscriber. Why would I send my money to a for-profit company like VA Software when my donation could be used by a true non-profit entity? (I do plan to put money where mouth is once I get settled in at Gna.) VA Software isn't hosting SF out of the goodness of their hearts; they simply see open-source as another part of their revenue stream.

This is sort of off-topic, but have you requested assistance from the SF staff lately? Don't bother: Unless you're a subscriber, they're way to busy to bother with you, and if they do, they're usually pretty curt about it. In a way, SF has outgrown its original purpose of providing a true service to the open-source community, and it's time to move on.

01 Jul 2004 06:01 AndrewCates

Places which make money
It is difficult.

We all hate the monopolistic rip-off merchants and that drives us to be prepared to do something for nothing but evetually they'll have to be some mechanism other than donations to pay for all this free stuff. Personally I'd rather pay upfront than be advertised to death

BozMo (catesfamily.org.uk/)

21 Aug 2004 17:57 antrik

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

> You cannot take GPLed source code and

> use it in a BSD licensed project.

You can very well. Only the result won't be BSD anymore.

The problem here isn't the GPL not being compatible with BSD; the problem is

the GPL not being compatible with your insistance on sticking to BSD licensing.

But that doesn't prevent otheres from mixing your BSD project with parts of

GPL projects. Thus, GNA!s claim is perfectly valid.

21 Aug 2004 18:27 antrik

HTML design

> About

> table, I can tell you that you would get

> a wontfix within the

> hour, as the primary matter is

> functionality, not following the

> trends of webdesign. In the past (not

> years ago), table were

> the only way to do complicated

> arrangements. Now there

> are faster and cleaner methods. It does

> not mean that the

> previous method are plain stupid and

> working no more.

Sorry, this isn't about "trends". There are very good reasons for not using

tables for layout purposes, including accessibility, usability and

compatibility.

Today, you can create a design that looks good on any modern browser, is still

usable on about any browser ever created, and moreover easier to maintain. No

point in sticking to old kludges like layout tables.

I can understand if you lack the time or knowledge to update the design

yourself. But that doesn't make the wish for such an update invalid.

09 Mar 2005 17:09 LodeRunner

Re: Is it really necessary to force the world into GPL ?

Second: There is no real discrepancy. The

GPL-compatibility requirement for program projects is
how we can pretend that hosted projects "will be
distributed under licensing terms compatible with
each other so that they can be mixed freely".

Just to avoid misunderstandings: use "pretend"

instead of "intend" is a common mistake for speakers

of romanic languages, since it is a false cognate.

That sentence should read as:

The GPL-compatibility requirement for program

projects is how we can intend to assure that hosted

projects "will be distributed under licensing terms

compatible with each other so that they can be mixed

freely".

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Suricata

A network IDS and IPS engine.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

pride

Poor Richard's Independent anDroid Environment.