Nathan Kidd wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> * If you can stand to bump the version requirement to 1.3, you can
>> optionally drop all the pool stuff from the script (and let
>> Python manage the memory usage itself).
> I intentionally left it at 1.2 for wider compatibility. I personally
> use 1.3+ on all my servers though and don't mind if it get's changed.
>> There is a matter that *does* require your attention, though. What were
>> you envisioning as the license on this contribution? Obviously, we'd
>> prefer you use the same license that Subversion does, and failing that
>> most of us would probably advise away from the GPL and toward something
>> that's Apache/BSD-ish, but the call is yours to make.
> I used the GPL because
> a) I generally prefer it
> b) I considered the interaction between hook-script-caller and
> hook-script to be separate enough that the license difference would not
> be a problem.
> c) I didn't think this script should have long-term use or need to be
> migrated out of contrib/ into svn proper (i.e. as you mentioned svnadmin
> should eventually know how to clean a repository, and the code should
> eventually be fixed to remove need for a hook-script.)
> Do you expect it to be a problem? (Or turned around, in what ways would
> it be helpful if it was BSD-ish?)
Besides the fact that this community has a history of encourage less
restrictive licenses, the concern on my mind was with that item (c)
above. Your algorithm is the obvious one, but it feels like shady
business "copying" (with Python-to-C translation, of course) your GPLed
logic into svnadmin.
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Tue Jan 9 22:24:41 2007