I often encounter that all Portable projects must be GPL because otherwise they cannot be hosted on Sourceforge. But on further examination Sourceforge has a list of many licenses. The main ones are:
GNU General Public License (GPL)
GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
BSD License
Public Domain
MIT License Apache License V2.0
Artistic License
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1)
Academic Free License (AFL)
But there's an additional list available which lists about 75 different licenses including 'Other/Proprietary License'. While I'm unsure if all these licenses are to be accepted, when starting a project you are able to select more than one license.
Knowing that GPL is the most popular and LGPL offers more freedom, I see sometimes discussions over the specific license GPL.
Am I correct to realize that projects that are listed under another license shown in the list would be allowed to be hosted on Sourceforge?
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
As a general rule, the license must be OSI approved. So new BSD is acceptable but old BSD with the advertising clause is not. All the licenses you mentioned are OSI approved.
And I don't recall anyone ever saying anything had to be GPLed to be hosted on SF.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Okay, as the list listed by Sourceforge are many, including 'Microsoft Public License' and 'NASA Open Source Agreement' for example. (I can provide the whole list on request if needed to be reviewed).
And OSI approived isn't 100% accurate as Sourceforge itself clearly states:
"Open Source Licensure: The project, and all content hosted on SourceForge.net for the project, must be licensed under an OSI-approved Open Source License or a license that SourceForge.net deems meeting the OSI Open Source Definition. Content that cannot meet the OSI Open Source Definition, due to not being source code, must meet the spirit of the Open Source Definition."
http://alexandria.wiki.sourceforge.net/Starting+a+New+Project
The point is '..or a license that SourceForge.net deems meeting the OSI Open Source Definition.'
I also cant recall a specific case saying anything had to be GPLed to be hosted on SF but much of the applications have a strong bias toward GPL licenses and in case of Zlib and BSD licenses and other free software licenses might have confused me the understanding what licenses would be okay. The pure OSI approved licenses are ok but theres also the oned that Sourceforge deems to be in spirit of the OSI open source definition ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ). Sourceforge even allows some projects for content using the Creative Commens license.
I know licensing issues have been covered before and I'm sorry about duplicating the effort in some of those cases. I just think it's a interesting, useful and yet complex issue.
It's not bias. It's popularity. The GPL/LGPL is the most popular open source license in the world. More popular than every other open source license combined.
Both the Microsoft Public License and the NASA Open Source Agreement *ARE* OSI approved: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!