public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mo DeJong <>
Subject: Re: Source-Navigator moves to SourceForge!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:58:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <002601c1f0aa$2d6e6280$700201c0@MAPQUEST.local>

On Wed, 1 May 2002 09:50:20 +0900
"Paul Selormey" <> wrote:

> Hello Mo,
> What I do not understand here is that, you or the other former
> members of the team do not favor GPL. Or is there more to it?

This has nothing to do with the GPL. Only the copyright holder can relicense a given body of code, so the code hosted on Source-Forge will continue to be licensed under the terms of the GPL. The sticking point was the additional requirement to assign the copyright for contributed code to Red Hat. This is unacceptable since it means that Red Hat could take the existing GPLed code and relicense it to a third party under non free terms.

Assume for example that you wrote a really stunning autoconf/automake/libtool interface for Source-Navigator. If you assign the copyright to Red Hat, then they would be within their rights to take that code and sell a proprietary version of it. I am not accusing Red Hat of anything, but the possibility is something that none of the development team members could accept.

For example, consider the new and improved parsers that Khamis has been working on.

These parsers can't be merged into the Red Hat distributed version of Source-Navigator because of this misguided policy. Khamis has to take it upon himself to distribute a new version of Source-Navigator just to work around the issue. I would rather see this time and effort going into improving one code base instead of spreading it out over multiple ones.

> Now, how does the move to SourceForge helps the license issue?

Moving Source-Navigator to SourceForge does not change the license at all. What it does do is get rid of the need for contributors to give up their copyrights. A contributor only needs to agree to license any code under the terms of the GPL. It also means that the developers can actually check changes into the CVS again. Now that both Ian and I no longer work at Red Hat, there is nobody left to check in patches or even process copyright assignments.

Many attempts were made to resolve this issue and continue to host the project on These attempts did not bear any fruit, rehosting the project was the only viable solution.

Mo DeJong

  reply	other threads:[~2002-05-01  4:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-04-30 14:19 Mo DeJong
2002-04-30 17:46 ` Paul Selormey
2002-04-30 21:58   ` Mo DeJong [this message]
2002-05-01  0:14   ` Khamis Abuelkomboz
2002-05-01 16:37     ` Mo DeJong
2002-05-01  9:00 Davies, Mike
2002-05-01  9:00 Davies, Mike
2002-05-01 13:21 ` Mo DeJong
2002-05-01 18:52 David Robinson (AU)
2002-05-01 20:56 ` Mo DeJong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).