RE: TortoiseSVN License

Simon Large wrote:
..snip..
> I thought we decided that was not the case. You mentioned
> Scintilla at
> one stage, but that is not GPL. Neon is LGPL, so that is OK
> to include.
>
> Stefan suggested the Artistic license, which is better than most for
> requiring attribution and in the case of commercialisation a
> copy of (or
> link to) the original open source version. According to GNU
> and OSF it
> is not a well written license and has too many legal loopholes and
> ambiguities. There is a version 2 on the way, but I don't know when.
>
> I suggested the Mozilla public license or Sun's CDDL variant of it.
> Stefan felt those were 2 much legalese, and also too US-specific.

And then I pop up (yet) again and wonder what is wrong with the LGPL - it
seems to cover what is required and may be ok with the TCVS developer.

Bill

--
       ___
  oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
 (_'\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
   \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to SubVersion Control
   /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
*** Confidentiality Notice *** Proprietary/Confidential
Information belonging to CGI Group Inc. and its affiliates
may be contained in this message. If you are not a recipient
indicated or intended in this message (or responsible for
delivery of this message to such person), or you think for
any reason that this message may have been addressed to you
in error, you may not use or copy or deliver this message
to anyone else.  In such case, you should destroy this
message and are asked to notify the sender by reply email.