On 5/17/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tmatesoft JavaSVN is the problem, not SVN per se
http://tmate.org/svn/licensing/index.html
Ah, thought the previous post was referring to JavaSVN.
Maybe still worth talking to them.
Please join legal discussion if you want to discuss the l
tmatesoft JavaSVN is the problem, not SVN per se
http://tmate.org/svn/licensing/index.html
Please join legal discussion if you want to discuss the legal terms,
but as I understand it's pretty clear. It's similar case as GPL, where
apache software can't depend on it, no matter if we just use it.
Either way if they give you guys trouble you can try sending chuck norris in
;) (sorry, just loved that signature..heh)
On 5/16/06, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is the license problem? With JavaSVN or SVN? According to
> tigris.org, svn is using an apache compatible license.
Where is the license problem? With JavaSVN or SVN? According to
tigris.org, svn is using an apache compatible license.
Maybe they are not aware that it is not?
Maybe this can be resolved by talking to them ...so they might fix that.
cheers
--
Torsten
---
: Fwd: javasvn license
FYI seems that we won't be able of having a java implementation of svn.
In fact I think we have to remove it from apache
-- Forwarded message --
From: Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 16, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: javasvn licens
e to remove it from apache
-- Forwarded message --
From: Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 16, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: javasvn license
To: Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
On 5/16/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECT
FYI seems that we won't be able of having a java implementation of
svn. In fact I think we have to remove it from apache
-- Forwarded message --
From: Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 16, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: javasvn license
To: Mario Ivankov
