Re: Should we change our license from CollabNet -> Apache like Subversion?

Jack Repenning wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> I just noticed that the Subversion project has changed its license from
>> the CollabNet license to the Apache license.  Somehow I missed any
>> discussion about the change so I don't know what motivated it.
>>
>> Should cvs2svn do the same?
>>
>> I would support the change, if for no other reason than to reduce the
>> confusing diversity of open-source licenses.
>>
>> Who could even make this decision?  What would it involve?
> 
> Do I even need to say "IANAL"? No, thought not ... But to the best of my
> understanding:
> 
> The Subversion license is controlled by the Subversion Corporation, a
> body legally constituted for purposes such as this (and consisting of
> the committers to the project). CollabNet helped to create this body,
> and formally relinquished rights to it, several years ago. The license
> change is much more recent, but is part of the same on-going "coming of
> age" of the Subversion project, stepping away from the support of
> CollabNet and standing on its own. There certainly has been a lot of
> talk about moving the Subversion project off Tigris, and onto
> Apache.Org; it wouldn't surprise me if that sentiment were a part of the
> license change (but, like you, I missed the actual discussion of the
> matter).
> 
> I don't know the legal status of cvs2svn. Since I believe that it was
> originally a part of Subversion proper, the answer might depend on when
> it was separated out from Subversion proper: if it was still part of
> Subversion at the time the Corporation was  formed, then I would imagine
> any questions about this would be between cvs2svn and Subversion, rather
> than CollabNet. OTOH, if cvs2svn split first, then legally speaking we
> might have to form a "Cvs2svn Corporation" in order to have someone to
> whom CollabNet might relinquish rights.

Yes, my understanding is that cvs2svn used to be part of the subversion
project, but that was before my time.  Based on when fitz migrated bugs
from one issue tracker to the other, I would guess that the switchover
occurred sometime around July 2003.  In any case, I think that the
Subversion corporation was created around the time of the SVN summit in
2006, which was definitely after the split.

IAANAL but naively it would seem that CollabNet could relinquish control
of cvs2svn to the Subversion Corporation too (assuming that SVNCorp is
willing).  I certainly think that a Cvs2svn Corporation would be overkill!

The worst part about the CollabNet license is that it is not well known.
 For example, who knows whether it is GPL-compatible?  It is not listed
on the FSF compatibility page in either the "compatible" or the
"incompatible" lists.

On the other hand, the Apache license is not GPL-compatible either,
which could possibly be a problem for people who want to build importer
backends for the DVCSs git, Mercurial, and bazaar.  From that point of
view GPLv2 would be the best license for cvs2svn.

Any chance of getting CollabNet to free up cvs2svn?

Michael

------------------------------------------------------
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1667&dsMessageId=2376106

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].