I maintain the packaging entries for subversion in pkgsrc, the native
packaging system on NetBSD and Dragonfly, and also widely used on mac
and solaris. Previously, we marked non-Free software with a LICENSE=
variable so that people could refrain from accidentially building it.
Now, we are adding free software licenses to the system, but with a
default that the build will proceed for licenses that are either Free
per FSF or Open Source per the Open Source Institute.
I see many places on the net that claim that subversion is
licensed under the apache license:
But, the COPYING file is different (also at
COPYING contains an obviously reasonable non-copyleft license,
apparently "modified BSD" plus the advertising clause for documentation
only, plus a prohibition on using "Tigris" as part of the name of a
derived work. So that seems clearly Free and Open Source.
But I can't find the subversion license at:
It seems, however, that the subversion 1.0 license is identical to the
apache 1.1 license:
So do I have this right? Would it make senes to submit the subversion
license for review to FSF and OSI? If not, it might be good to call it
the apache 1.1 license, or at least point out that it is the same terms
but merely with different names.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-30 01:49:18 CEST
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored