That kind of backwards pratice (does anyone else in FOSS still do it?) tends to rub FOSS ppl the wrong way.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker
Due to US cryptographic software export law. We're looking into licenses etc to allow this in the future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#Current_status …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @loganabbott
It's 2016 not 1996. Nobody plays that game anymore except ppl wanting to look backwards.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
Github has the same issue. https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @loganabbott
GitHub's is diff. They say "it is ultimately your responsibility to ensure that your use...comply with all applicable laws..."
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
So that we can ensure we can hold on to SourceForge so past regressions don't re-occur with future owners
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @loganabbott
Well I think it's gonna be hard, but your openness is at least promising.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @loganabbott
If I were in your place I think I would have just sold the 2-letter domain for an obscene price...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @loganabbott
...made a trust to keep the FOSS archives/hosting alive, and kept what remaining profit I could.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But if you can revive SF and make it useful and relevant, awesome.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.