Thanks Karl. Collab.Net's position is reasonable, and is what I was
expecting. However, in order to comply with the Subversion license, I was
required by section (4) to hear it in your own words. :-)
----- Original Message -----
To: "David Rauschenbach" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Derived product licensing question
> "David Rauschenbach" <email@example.com> writes:
>> Section (4) of the Subversion license mentions asking
>> firstname.lastname@example.org for permission before using a hosted product name in
>> the name of a derived product. Presumably "Subversion" is a "hosted
>> product name".
>> I sent such an e-mail a few weeks ago (Jan 22), and haven't heard
>> from anyone. Does anyone know who the gatekeeper of Subversion
>> licensing is, and how I might contact them directly?
> Sorry for the delay, David.
> Our policy is that it's okay to use the name "Subversion" as an
> accurate descriptor. That is, if you're distributing or running an
> unmodified Subversion as received from the Subversion Project, and as
> long as you don't do anything to misrepresent the origins of
> Subversion (e.g., imply that your organization wrote Subversion, or
> contributed something to Subversion that you didn't actually
> contribute, that sort of thing), then you can call it "Subversion".
> But if what you're running is modified from what we distribute, then
> please always add qualifiers, e.g. "Goodserver Subversion", and be
> clear to your customers (in some publicly visible way) that what
> they're getting from GoodServer is not exactly the same as what the
> Subversion project itself distributes.
> The main purpose of these guidelines is to prevent identity confusion
> and to protect the project's reputation.
> I hope this helps,
> www.collab.net <> CollabNet | Distributed Development On Demand
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Feb 6 16:02:09 2006