On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 05:04:39PM -0700, David Glasser wrote:
> On 11/2/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org> writes:
> > > I've had a few people sending me contributions to svn-load[1] (move-map
> > > support, Windows support), and I'm realizing that I should really move
> > > its svn repo somewhere public. alioth.debian.org is what I'm currently
> > > thinking (perhaps as part of the subversion packaging project) - but I
> > > was wondering if there's already an existing place for such tools.
> > >
> > > [1] svn-load is a (mostly) drop-in replacement for svn_load_dirs, but
> > > available under an open source license and written in python
> > > http://free.linux.hp.com/~dannf/svn-load/
> > > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/svn-load/current/changelog
> >
> > Note that svn_load_dirs is also under an open source license (not sure
> > if you were implying otherwise...?)
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-10/0490.shtml
Thanks Dave. Though, I don't see anything in there that grants
explicit redistribution/modification rights (IANAL), so unfortunately
it doesn't change anything for Debian[1]. We want to be sure as
possible that we (and our users) can redistribute and make any
modifications we wish, as per the terms of our social
contract[2]. Without an explicitly free license, we would be
introducing both legal risk to ourselves, our users[3], and our
derivatives[4] and their users. Of course we performed due diligence
to try and avoid duplicate effort by asking for a license assignment,
but when that failed I chose to implement an explicitly open version.
Of course, everyone redistributing this software should evaluate the
risk for themselves and make their own decision - it looks like
you have done so, and have decided the risk is low enough to keep
shipping it. I certainly won't argue with that decision - its yours to
make. But I do think its a misrepresentation to call it open source
since, without a license that permits modification, derivation and
redistribution, it violates at least items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
the open source definition[5].
Sorry, my implication that svn_load_dirs wasn't open source wasn't
intended as bait to bring up this conversation again - I know its been
discussed here multiple times, I'd just thought this point was
universally accepted.
[1] I'm not a member of the Debian subversion team, so can't speak for
them - I'm basing this statement on similar issues we've ran into
in the past
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract
[3] Which includes the company I work for
[4] Ubuntu, being the most well-known
[5] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
--
dann frazier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 3 02:09:31 2007