On Monday, July 24, Fredrik Liljegren wrote:
> > It is not quite true that WinCVS is GPL'ed. WinCVS uses the
> > CodeJock MFC
> > library (www.codejock.com), which is NOT GPL. Below is a
> > portion of the
> > CodeJock license (http://www.codejock.com/terms_of_use.htm):
> ...
> > >If you do not meet the requirements for free use of the
> > SOFTWARE, you may
> > >use the SOFTWARE for up to thirty (30) days for the purpose
>
> > This raises questions of whether WinCVS may be
> > unintentionally violating the GPL of CVS.
>
> Well, it might be unintentional, but to me it seems to be a clear violation.
> Since CVS is GNU software, I guess the FSF has the copyright? If so, I
> really suggest you, Jonathan, contact them and see what they have to say
> about it. I don't think they would like their software being turned into
> some kind of shareware...
You seem to get the term "CVS is GNU software" royaly mixed up. Yes, the
CVS code is under the GPL license. However, if someone else implements a
client (or server) that talks the CVS protocol, and does not use any GPL
licensed code, then they are free to put their software under whatever
license they choose. So, under the assumption that the WinCVS person wrote
his/her code by themselves, and did not use any GPL'd code within it, they
are quite free to license it whichever way they choose.
Should the statement "Since CVS is GNU software" extend to the point of
"infecting" something developed without GPL'd source-cde, by mere
association of name, and some crazy fool goes out and bothers or otherwise
harasses the author of said software, I will give up *every* belief I've
ever had in the GPL/GNU/FSF community, and I will make *sure* that the
rest of the world/net hears about it as well.
In other words, this is rediculous. Get your bloody facts straight before
you start accusing someone of being in violation of law. People are still
innocent until proven guilty. And no, the onus is not on the innocent to
prove themselves "not guilty", but on the person doing the accusing to
actually prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, I
don't think the WinCVS author(s) need answer any of your questions,
should they decide not to do so.
Also, WinCVS seems to make available the source it uses. Should some of
this source fall under the GPL, why would this "infect" some library it
uses? So by the simple fact that WinCVS runs on Win95, M$ should be
obligated to open their source to Win95?!? Even this case is one of
association, and I fail to see how these sort of arguments could possibly
hold up.
--Toby.
