Branko Èibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote on 10/19/2006 09:41:14 AM:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Being a natural troublemaker, I pointed out to the lawyers that CVS is
GPL
> > licensed, and Eclipse has always included a CVS client. They wrote
the
> > code themselves in Java, but it would be an interesting legal test of
the
> > GPL to see if you can reverse engineer a GPL product and license it
> > another way.
> >
>
> The GPL explicitly states that program output is not covered by it. The
> files in a CVS repository are the output of the CVS program, as is the
> jabber it uses as a network protocol. QED, and i hope RMS would agree.
> Otherwise all the code that was ever stored in a CVS repository is
> implicitly GPL'ed wouldn't that be fun.
Shouldn't you be adding a final recap to the svn-dev blog?
I did think I remembered reading a discussion about whether the protocol
and file formats of a GPL program was covered by the GPL or whether it
could be reverse engineered in a non-GPL program. Probably just Slashdot
nonsense though. Anyway, we are getting off topic and you have a recap to
write. :)
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 19 15:49:55 2006