On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Richard Lowe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> As for looking at the code, I don't see anything to comment on
>> in the way git was used - seems reasonable enough to me, but I
>> didn't review that closely. (Did you really mean to put GPL
>> on git-active when the rest is CDDL? Since it's a seperate
>> program, it should be okay, just may require extra conversations
>> with the lawyers to integrate.)
>
> I think it must have been copied over with the copy from hg-active. I
> honestly don't know if derivation from hg-active means it needs to keep
> the GPLv2.
For all those who pointed out license issue: there is no subliminal
message in it - it is a leftover of hg-active.
I was concerned with the functionality more than the license at the
time i did it. And never touched it since.
I am going to convert it to CDDL.
Anyway I am going through all the comments from all the parties and
post another webrev soon.
--
Regards,
Cyril
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
