[news.eclipse.technology.subversive] Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS?

["Igor Vinnykov" <igor.vinnykov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Thomas,

I have good news - together with Bjorn, Mike and Janet we found solution, 
which allows us to start Subversive migration to eclipse.org. It simply 
means that Subversive incubation on eclipse.org will be started soon. I 
think that it's an answer, which you want to hear :)

If you want to have more information about licensing issues, which we had, 
then you can take a look to IPZilla item 
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1542. In fact, some parts of 
Subversion (and JavaHL as well) have GPL licenses, which break their 
distribution from eclipse.org.

The current solution, which we found during Eclipse Summit Europe 2007 is 
following (quotation of Bjorn's e-mail):

The Technology PMC deems the Subversion desktop client to be a pre-req of 
the Subversive project.
The project, PMC, and EMO assert that there is GPL code contained in the 
libraries required by the JavaHL client and therefore JavaHL client is 
incompatible with the EPL.
The EMO has stated the Subversion client is an exempt pre-req because it is 
(a) pervasive in nature and (b) would reasonably be expected to already be 
installed on the user's machine.
The Subversive project should go forward on the assumption that they will 
use Subversion desktop client as an pre-installed pre-req for their project 
and note this use in the project ip log. (Note: the project may not 
distribute the Subversion desktop client from eclipse.org.)

Best regards,
Igor Vinnykov

"Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@xxxxxxx> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????: 
news:46B3B7DF.3020003@xxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Bjorn,
> While were on the subject. I have a related question on the IP/licensing 
> topic.
>
> CVS is developed and released under GPL. The Eclipse CVS client is 
> clean-room and of course EPL. Yet it implements a GPL'ed protocol and can 
> only function together with a GPL'ed server installation.
>
> SVN on the other hand, is Apache/BSD style license. The svnClientAdapter, 
> and the JavaHL CLI, is also Apache/BSD. The Subclipse and Subversive 
> clients are both EPL. The only part I know has a GPL'ish license is the 
> optional SVNKit.
>
> From a laymans perspective, it really looks like SVN whould have the upper 
> hand :-). I know that Subclipse revoked their submission since they could 
> not make it pass the Eclipse IP barrier for some reason. I still haven't 
> understood what that reason was. Obviously it must have a more apparent 
> GPL dependency then the one from the CVS client. What is it that blocks 
> Subversive?
>
> - thomas
>
>
> Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
>> Given that the Subversive project is the official Eclipse subversion 
>> interface and that the Subversive project makes use of some GPL code, 
>> which is a no-no, the Subversive project is currently held up in the 
>> Eclipse IP review. I suggest that we switch to working with CVS until the 
>> Subversive legal issues are resolved. Specifically, since the next thing 
>> we are working on is "Share...", we should Share to a CVS server for now.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> _______________________________________________
>> spaces-dev mailing list
>> spaces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/spaces-dev