OK, I think I've got it figured out. If you set it up to use ssh, then if you have the public key on the server's authorized_keys file, then you can execute any command on the server. So the downside to using this technique for fractint developers is that you are trusting those developers to arbitrary shell commands on the server. I could enquire at XMission about an account just for fractint developers and there would be minimal side effects to allowing open ssh access to developers. XMission provides free 50 MB accounts to non-profit organizations. It would be better if we just setup sourceforge with fractint using some license that's more permissive than the GPL. Then we could do the same thing on sourceforge and wouldn't have to setup anything weird. Can't we be covered under the X Window System license? -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
Rich wrote:
It would be better if we just setup sourceforge with fractint using some license that's more permissive than the GPL. Then we could do the same thing on sourceforge and wouldn't have to setup anything weird.
Why does the license have to be more permissive than GPL? GPL is fine for sourceforge.
Can't we be covered under the X Window System license?
Strictly speaking, migrating the license means contacting all the users which is possible. However, practically, I really doubt that anyone cares. We just risk someone objecting. There is some code that really isn't ours that we'd have to do some research to change the license. I always assumed that the current DOS version would have the old "license" forever, but any significant port that massaged all the code would at the same time change the license. I always thought that GPL was most in the spirit of the old license - OK to use the code in another project with the same license. Tim
In article <41210084.4461.6F67CC@localhost>, "Tim Wegner" <twegner@swbell.net> writes:
Why does the license have to be more permissive than GPL? GPL is fine for sourceforge.
Sourceforge allows any number of open source licenses; I just thought that the fractint source code had existing licenses on pieces that were incompatible with GPL, but GPL is fine with me. Is the xfractint port sufficiently different that we can slap GPL on it and put it on sourceforge? That would make CVS usage *so* much easier. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ: <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/> Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty <http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
participants (2)
-
Rich -
Tim Wegner