On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:31:07PM -0400, David Weintraub wrote:
> I see no reason why you couldn't package Subversion. There isn't even
> a requirement that you have to package the Subversion source code as a
> package. You can submit the Subversion license to the Open Source
> Institute or the FSF, but I have a feeling that these organizations
> would need CollabNet to be the submitter.
Packagers need to take into account that scripts in contrib/ may
have different licenses than the rest of the distribution.
Beware: Some of contrib/ does not even have a license, and we're
contemplating removing those scripts.
Greg, you could mark Subversion (except for stuff from the contrib directory)
as "Apache 1.1" license, if you really need to use a standard OSI-approved
license name. Subversion's license is essentially Apache 1.1 with customizations
that (IIRC) mostly or exclusively relate to trademark stuff.
We recognise that the custom license is a nuisance, and the project plans
to switch to Apache 2.0 soon for that reason.
Stefan
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt_at_ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> > 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 accidentally 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:
> >
> > http://directory.fsf.org/project/subversion/
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion_(software)
> >
> > But, the COPYING file is different (also at
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/license-1.html).
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
> >
> > It seems, however, that the subversion 1.0 license is identical to the
> > apache 1.1 license:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1987643
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
>
>
>
> --
> David Weintraub
> qazwart_at_gmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1998465
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-05-03 13:43:26 CEST