On 5/25/06, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com> wrote:
> > Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, my objection comes from the fact that we've gone to great
> > > lengths to make sure that all of subversion's core functionality and
> > > dependencies are non-virally licensed.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed explanation.
>
> No problem.
>
> > >> It might even be possibile to relicense svnmerge.py.
> > >
> > > If svnmerge.py was available under a BSDish license my objection would
> > > absolutely go away.
> >
> > Is there any more specific preference? I'd hate to go through the
> > relicensing process, just to find out that the random license I picked up
> > has a clause which still makes it "incompatible" with the SVN binary
> > distribution (assuming you are the right person to answer me here, which I
> > honestly don't know since I do not follow SVN development much).
>
> The MIT license, a modern BSD license (no advertising clause), the ASL
> 2.0, or Subversion's current license would all seem reasonable to me.
> MIT and BSD are very liberal, and we already depend on stuff under the
> ASL 2.0.
If you're looking for the most flexible option, pick the MIT or BSD
licenses. These licenses are very liberal and are compatible with all
licenses.
I've heard that the ASL 2.0 (and Subversion's license, which is a
derivative of ASL 1.1) is technically GPL incompatible.
(If you pick the BSD license, note that you will have to explain that
you chose the version which does not have the advertising clause. On
the other hand, if you pick the MIT license, you won't have to worry
about this.)
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 25 20:29:02 2006