Re: VisualSVN GPL Violation on TSVN?

If I understand the GPL license correctly, it applies in this case to
TortoiseSVN (TSVN).

Which means TSVN must be distributed or made available, which VisualSVN does.
Any derived work must be distributed under the same license, but is
VisualSVN derived work? Seems like the jury is still out on that one.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License:

"The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPLed code
must themselves be GPLed. However, it is not clear whether an
executable that dynamically links to a GPL library should be
considered a derivative work. The free/open-source software community
is split on this issue, with the FSF asserting that such an executable
is indeed a derivative work, and other experts disagreeing. This is
ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law
defines derivative works."

So if copyright laws defines what the GPL means, then we have as many
variations as there are countries.

--
Thomas
On 9/6/06, George Marselis <project2501a@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It depends on what they are selling, isn't it? VisualSVN
> > provides transparent moves and renames, something I posted as
> > a feature request for TortoiseSVN.
>
> That's not the point. The point is that this could be a violation of the GNU
> Public Licence, under which TSVN is licenced. My main interest lies with
> preserving the GPL, nomatter how small or large of small of an infridgemen.
>
> Your friendly Greek bastard, ;)
>
> George Marselis
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org