Re: Subversion/Neon License question

> Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:01:20AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >
> >>On 1/26/06, Mark Phippard <markp@softlanding.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I had to fill out a document at work that just listed open source
> software
> >>>we were using along with the licenses. I was surprised when I looked
> up
> >>>the license for Neon to see that it is GPL.
> >>
> >>Where did you see that? The neon homepage
> >>(http://www.webdav.org/neon/) says *Library* GPL, not GPL.
>
> Also note that the FSF would _really_ prefer this language to stop being
> used; the official name of that license is now the Lesser General Public
> License, not 'Library'. There _is_ a 'Library General Public License',
> but its use is strongly discouraged.

Given the second sentence, I'd say you're plain wrong in the first sentence:
If it refers to an existing license, the author shouldn't stop referring to
that license with its real name, shouldn't it?

bye,

Erik.

-- 
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org