Re: CVS update: subversion/subversion/libsvn_client add.c apply_edits.c checkout.c client.h commit.c delete.c status.c update.c

On 22 Nov 2000, Karl Fogel wrote:

> Ah, Greg H -- okay, I understand the complaint, although (in fact) it
> wouldn't bother me if AOL/Netscape did that, because my original code
> would still be free and I would presume their proprietary fork would
> die off, as all such do. :-)
>
> In any case, the specific license at issue here is the CollabNet
> license, which already allows proprietary forks. Is there any
> Subversion contributor who is worried about a possible future version
> of the CollabNet license, and if so, why? If there's a scenario in
> which CollabNet could change the license and cause your code to be in
> a situation you don't want, then we shouldn't allow retroactive
> license changes.
>
> But at the moment, considering the current nature of the CollabNet
> license, I can't think of such a scenario. Can anyone else?
>
> -K

Some might point to the Python license problems as a cautionary tale.
It seems like exactly the sort of scenario that would worry me.

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html

Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:15 2006