> It clearly makes it very hard for companies and the likes to really take
> advantage of the BSD-like license of subversion (i.e modify it
> without giving
> away the changes). If you don't distribute your sources you have to either
> make subversion use a different database or pay Sleepycat.
Yes, the Sleepycat license is unfortunate, but please don't let a little
yeast work through the whole lump of dough. :-)
With the rest of the system under a BSD-like license, and with the Sleepycat
stuff fairly well isolated, the Sleepycat license is not that big of a
problem. Yes, clearing the obstacle requires that we would have to hook up
a new database or pay Sleepycat. In the context of a business endeavor,
neither choice is all that bad.
In other words, I applaud your use of a BSD-ish license. It makes it very
appealing and very easy for a company to contribute to your development
effort (which I hope SourceGear can do in the future), knowing that all
of the companies involved can make use of the resulting technology (which
I hope SourceGear can do in the future).
(BTW: This is a nitpick, but the difference *may* be substantive: The
benefit of the BSD-like license, in my perspective, is not "modify it
without giving away the changes". Rather, it is "integrate it without
giving away the rest of the product".)
You have a very, very cool project going here. You seem to be making all
the right choices, in terms of architecture, community, and business.
You have created something that people will want to be a part of. Ever
since I took my latest look at Subversion, I have been trying to plan
a way to get involved.
Under some other license, I would probably be less interested. I realize
that my interest is not very meaningful for you right now, since I am still
a non-contributor. Nonetheless, the affirmation in this note is offered
as a very, very small contribution to your project. :-)
Signed,
A humble lurker, but an enthusiastic one.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006