Re: cvs2svn vs. Mercurial licensing

Max Bowsher wrote:
> Someone remind me... where did we get to in the "Is cvs2svn legally
> allowed to 'import mercurial.....'?" can of worms?

There are two lines of argument:

* An inquiry that I made at [email protected] was responded to with the
attached email, which says

    Yes, the CollabNet license at
    http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/project_license.html
    is GPLv2-compatible.

Most of the CollabNet license is a copy-paste of the Apache 1.1 license,
which the FSF does not consider GPLv2-compatible.  But apparently the
clause that causes offense is changed enough to render the license
compatible.

* Daniel Berlin (who actually *is* a lawyer!) says [1]

    You are right now doing absolutely nothing that brings the GPLv2
    into play. The fact that right now, you think most users will use it
    with a GPLv2 module makes absolutely no difference to whether your
    software would need to be GPLv2'd.

though the main Mercurial developer [2] seems to disagree on this point,
and elsewhere confusion reigns (e.g., [3]).

But I guess we're covered pretty well, one way or the other.

[1]
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1667&dsMessageId=2398187
[2]
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/License#What_is_a_.22derived_work.22.3F
[3] http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/

------------------------------------------------------
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1667&dsMessageId=2408655

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