[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: subversion in main?

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 09:44:57AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 05:04:52PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> > Subversion has some clauses in its license that seemed very questionable to 
> > me. Here they are for your convenience:
> > 
> > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
> > any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes
> > software developed by CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/)."
> > Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if
> > and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
> X-Oz all over again. It is DFSG-free and GPL-incompatible. Subversion
> inherited this idiocy from apache, I think. It does not, and can not,
> use any GPLed works.

It's likely that we'll include the acknowledgement in the software
itself, eliminating this as a concern for people packaging subversion.

Additionally, collab.net has specified that they will not complain if
someone were to relicense under the GPL (and thereby dropped this
clause).  See the thread here:

Later on in the thread I explicitly ask Brian if this is what he meant
(my summary above) in the linked message and he says yes.

Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>

"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken

Reply to: