Re: Sourceforge

From: Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>, Ned Lilly <ned(at)xtuple(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sourceforge
Date: 2015-05-29 17:49:27
Message-ID: 6E8173B7-C28B-4182-9DF6-D72E4C68E660@citusdata.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

> On May 29, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
> we would only want to do so if there was clear harm to our users and
> our reputation. Which is completely lacking here.

Clearly! I meant only in the context of using a PostgreSQL download as
a malware vector. That’s not presently the case, but I was putting the
idea out there.

> If you ignore the issues with WinGimp, SF.net is providing us a service:
> a free mirror which a handful of people use.

If we ignore the issues with GIMP, this thread doesn’t exist!

FWIW I think filing a takedown is a Rubicon of sorts, and making that
move comes with a cost, especially for the sort of benevolent/laissez-
faire community FOSS projects such as PostgreSQL strive to cultivate.
It would need a clear and present danger to a large segment of users.

On the other hand, there is probably little risk of alienating “good”
community members by going after SF should this behavior continue.

--
Jason Petersen
Software Engineer | Citus Data
303.736.9255
jason(at)citusdata(dot)com

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-05-31 20:20:44 Re: Sourceforge
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2015-05-29 17:30:06 Re: Sourceforge