Quoting Erik Enge (erik@nittin.net): | Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net writes: | | > - Names of the project members and sponsors, ie who is running things | | How about, at the "About this site": | | "This site is currently paid for and maintained by | <insert-our-names-here>"

That would clarify things, and let users know who is providing the service. Openness is good.

| > - What open source/free projects can get hosting? DFSG? Wider than | > DFSG? Stricter than DFSG? 'Hosting decisions are made on case-by-case | > basis.' is fine, but some examples of accepted licences would be nice. | | I think DFSG sounds reasonable. Any reason not to restrict it to DFSG?

DFSG is fairly well-known and respected.

| > - How about cron-jobs, e.g for rsync of cclan?" | | You mean that project members can add cron-jobs? They can, although | this is one of the things that could get out of hand real quick so use | with moderation. For things like cclan we can add a specific cron job, | such as those for ftp and web.

As I suggested on #lisp, a system where each project can make a cclan/ directory in the project-root, and some script is run as cron-job that gathers files from cclan/ for CCLAN-inclusion might be the best solution. It will probably also make cclan and cl.net work well together and be attractive for people with lisp packages. CCLAN is lacking a central upload hub where (DFSG) lisp-projects can easily join CCLAN and upload updates and packages.

| > "14:22 <Fufie> there's also no written guarantee on not reselling email-lists, | > source, etc | > 14:23 <Fufie> ie a bit short on the legalese, disclaimers, .." | | Ok, let's mention this with the DFSG part.

Maybe http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6049&group_id=1 is a good place to start/copy from.

Quoting Nikodemus Siivola (nikodemus@random-state.net): | On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:16:03PM +0200, Stig E Sandoe wrote: | | > | How about, at the "About this site": | > | | > | "This site is currently paid for and maintained by | > | <insert-our-names-here>" | > | > That would clarify things, and let users know who is providing the | > service. Openness is good. | | Do you think the simple name-list is sufficent, or should it elaborate | on the backgound and current working order?

I'm not sure how this is organised to be honest. If it is a volunteer project (not sponsored) I'd say that names, current job, and roughly what the person does on cl.net is informative. If a company is providing network, hardware, etc I think it's good to mention it.

After all, cl.net is also about people entrusting you with their projects which they spend a lot of time on, so openness is a good way to build trust. Some of us have used sourceforge and despite services not always being ideal, they've built up trust over time. cl.net is a good idea and a promising hosting, but you will also need to build up trust in the lisp-community. Openness and e.g providing a good CCLAN-service is a great way to start, imho.

| > | > - What open source/free projects can get hosting? DFSG? Wider than | > | > DFSG? Stricter than DFSG? 'Hosting decisions are made on case-by-case | > | > basis.' is fine, but some examples of accepted licences would be nice. | > | | > | I think DFSG sounds reasonable. Any reason not to restrict it to DFSG? | > | > DFSG is fairly well-known and respected. | | I think we can mention DSFG, with some caveats: | | * Licenses (such as LGPL) invoking distiction between dynamic and | static linking are generally horribly confusing when confronted | with Common Lisp way of loading code. | | * The same "horribly confusing" applies to LLGPL as well, with the | addition the FSF seems to have trouble with the prelude. | | * We reserve the right to host non-DSFG free projects if we feel that | it is appropriate. Examples include projects for which non-DSFG license | is more suitable, and possible sponsorship.

I think your choice of words (e.g 'horribly confusing') is a bit offputting, maybe link to and explain why DFSG is the standard guideline while you open up for any other projects on a case-by-case basis (examples are good). Then maybe have an informative "be aware of" section with a description of the possible problems with LGPL and Lisp. LGPL is DFSG-compliant and as such should be no more problem than GPL.

| Naturally, this would not apply to any cclan mirror that we may host, | or to any cclan upload mechanism we may provide: just to "normal" | project hosting, which may or may not include the cclan upload | facility.

Right.