I was thinking about subversions (svn) this morning and possible hosting on
Savannah.
It struck me that SVN was indeed GPL incompatable, so I emailed licensing just
to check.
Here's the email.
I'm not too sure we should end up hosting svn, after all if we can avoid using
non-GPL software we should.
----- Forwarded message from Zak Greant via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:16:54 -0500
Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
id 1EvzhW-00014s-8o
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:16:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34)
id 1Evzni-0002jY-MB
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:23:18 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.167] (helo=rt.gnu.org)
by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16)
(Exim 4.34)
id 1Evzni-0002jU-I4; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:23:18 -0500
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1EvznG-0002WY-LQ; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:22:50 -0500
Subject: [gnu.org #265433] svn license
From: "Zak Greant via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #265433
Managed-by: RT 3.0.11 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Sender: www-data <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:22:50 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on monty-python
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=LINES_OF_YELLING,
UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no version=2.63
X-UIDL: C;>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]&B"!GI#"!
> [mjflick - Mon Jan 09 11:18:28 2006]:
>
> I was wondering if the license for subversions,
> http://subversion.tigris.org/project_license.html, is GPL compatable.
Unfortunately, the SVN license is not GPL compatible.
> I was thinking the third clause sort of reminds me of that old BSD
> advertising clause.
Bingo.
--
Zak Greant
IMPORTANT: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IN MANY JURISDICTIONS, LEGAL
ADVICE MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED TO YOU BY A LAWYER LICENSED TO PRACTICE
IN THE JURISDICTION AND WHO HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY RETAINED TO PROVIDE
LEGAL SERVICES TO YOU.
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Michael J. Flickinger
