On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:51:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * 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.
I asked the author of esvn, which confirmed that the license is GPL, so now I think there is no problem to consider packaging esvn in 'main' section. Here is his answer: ===== This license is GPL for all platform with GPL-ed version of QT include Linux, so the license for the Debian will be GPL as well. If I made it not clear, please let me know what I need to change in the license and I'll do it. I have read the discussion, and have added GPL notices to all source files. regards, Eugene Bort ==== Regards, Pierre
