Chris Cason  wrote in message <48809f34@news.povray.org>:
> I am seriously considering opening our revision control system for public
> read access. The main issue stopping me is that I don't want to revisit the
> same sort of issues that people flame us for already: they don't like our
> type of 'free'. We use Perforce for revision control, which has free (as in
> no cost to use) client software*, but is not Free Software such as SVN is.
> I don't expect a requirement to have to install non "Free Software" to
> access the repo would be very popular, and frankly I don't want to have to
> deal with the inevitable complaints (as Linus's experience with a
> proprietary SCCS showed).
> 
> While I could migrate to SVN (there is a p42svn tool), I'd prefer to wait
> until 3.7 is finished if this is to be done (note I use SVN daily at work
> and am in a good position to compare the two - I find I prefer Perforce).

I am very glad to read that, thanks a lot.

I think you could quell most of the complaints by saying everything out
loud: on the page with the instructions to get the source code, just write
something like:

"You can access the current source code using Perforce. Please note that
Perforce is free/gratis but not free/libre; a probable change for Subversion
is scheduled for after the release of the final 3.7 version."

I know I would be perfectly satisfied with such a message (although I would
grumble that I can not install a perforce client with apt-get), and I think
anyone sympathetic to free software would feel the same.

For just the same reason, I think that the intended licence change and the
reason for the delay should be written on the download page:

"Distribution and Modification of POV-Ray is governed by our distribution
license and source license. Please refer to those documents before
re-distributing or modifying any POV-Ray files. {+A change for a more common
open source license is scheduled for the 4.0 release.+}"

(with "scheduled" being a link to a FAQ entry explaining the impossibility
to change the licence when authors are missing)

This is not much, but just writing it on the visible pages would show even
FSF fanatics that you are aware of their concerns.

Post a reply to this message