* Sven Luther: >> I'd rather see a clarification from upstream. If they intent to >> prevent a GPLed Windows port, it's non-free. If they just want to >> make sure that people may distribute Windows binaries, it's probably okay. > > Well, the only way giving this licencing would be the absense of a GPLed port > of Qt to windows, wouldn't it ? This hardly makes eSvn non-free, not anymore > than our dual-licenced Qt does.
That depends entirely on the meaning of the headlines, unfortunately. If Pierre wants to approach upstream on this matter, he should request a change to "Licensing Option 1" and "Licensing Option 2", to make clear that eSvn is dual-licensed independently of the operating system that is used.
