Bio not provided
Your welcome for the feedback. Thank you for your reply.
Getting endorsements is not the same as transparency.
In regards to Google, several
of the RSS feeds I monitor have had recent reports about Google being
fined between $17 million and $22.5 million in the Safari privacy case.
Also, there has been an on-going stream of articles about members of the
security community claiming problems with malware distributed via the
Google Play application store. So, if Google has such great policies in
place to stop deceptive activity, why are they having so much trouble
actually stopping it? And if it is Google we should put our trust in,
why don't we just move our projects to Google Code and the binary
downloads to Google Docs?
I understand that OSI
Director Simon Phipps may have positive things to say about money being
invested back into projects on SourceForge via the DevShare program.
But do you have any quotes from Simon Phipps which indicate that he
believes close source programs to be just as transparent as open source
programs? The claim of "positive feedback" is also not an indication of
It is being able to actually audit the activity of a company or program that results in transparency. If you want instead to
play the game using the names of impressive companies or people as the
right way to handle this, then I can play that game too. I can produce several quotes that are very favorable towards Enron. None of them would change what Enron was or did but they would be quotes from key companies and people. I want SourceForge to be something more than the Arthur Andersen of project hosting. It is my hope that you want that as well.
bothers me the most, is no one has explained the "cost" which would be involved in the DevShare
program being based on truly fully transparent open source installer.
For example, if secondary offerings where provided by a NullSoft Installer
and publically available NSIS script, then would installs of the
secondary offering be worth less? Is clicking to install a secondary
offering from a closed source installer actually worth more than
clicking to install a secondary offering from an open source installer?
What is the percentage difference in worth between an install performed
by an open installer vs. a closed installer? Please explain to me if DevShare is already "designed to be fully transparent" then why does it
require the installer to be closed source?
Thanks again for your reply.
1 year ago on Advertising, Bundling, Community and Criticism
The idea that a close source installer can be fully transparent sounds like marketing double talk.
A key point made by the GIMP project was:
> "[they] strongly encourage the top projects to use a new (closed source only) installer"
SourceForge not only seems to have missed this key point but has completely reversed it's previous position on Open Source being a key component to transparency. Instead, SourceForge claims:
> "The DevShare program has been designed to be fully transparent. The installation flow has no deceptive steps..."
Who says it has no deceptive steps? How do I audit the source code to the installation flow?
For anyone that reads the SourceForge blog, this seems to be a very jarring change in prospective on the part of SourceForge. Several previous SourceForge blog posts bring up transparency, but always in the context Open Source Software. Before November 2013, I can't find any SourceForge blog posts that refer to close source as "fully transparent." I also can't find any other SourceForge blog post that tries to claim close source software contain no deceptive steps. Once SourceForge is able to make the leap that a close source installer is fully transparent, there really is no common ground to continue a discussion on. It isn't a matter of a third party being a bad actor, SourceForge itself is the bad actor.
Bottom line, this SourceForge blog post which backs the use of a close source installer is proof of erosion taking place on fundamental ideal of the foundation of SourceForge.