On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 08:31:48PM -0500, Benjamin Fritz wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Bram Moolenaar <b...@moolenaar.net> wrote: > > > > Ben Fritz wrote: > > > >> On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:59:47 PM UTC-5, Thilo Six wrote: > >> > > How about setting up an independent repo (not a clone) at > >> > > http://vim-runtime.googlecode.com/ > >> > > Code license: GNU GPL v2 > >> > > >> > runtimefiles are all (or better they all should be) licensed under Vim > >> > licences. > >> > >> Yeah, but Google Code only has a few allowed licenses. Vim License is > >> not one of them. Bram has dual-licensed Vim under GPL v2 and Vim > >> License to allow putting it on Google Code. > > > > The dual-license wasn't created for that reason :-). > > > > I suppose it's OK to list the work as GPL, since it's the more > > restrictive. Thus stays on the safe side. > > > > My mistake, I thought that was the reason, since it wasn't > dual-licensed to my knowledge until the Mercurial repo. Can you > enlighten us?
The old CVS repository shows that the license text was added to runtime/doc/uganda.txt back in 2001[0] and it mentioned the GPL dual licensing then. [0]: http://vim.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/vim/vim/runtime/doc/uganda.txt?r1=1.53&r2=1.54&; -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <james...@jamessan.com>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
