You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Erik Hemdal <er...@comprehensivepower.com> on 2006/07/14 13:33:56 UTC
Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
PushOK SVN has been suggested to me as a way to use Subversion as an SCC
provider for some of our IDE tools. But my source didn't have any
specifics, only that it is supposed to work. Does anyone have experience
with this SCC plug-in that they can share?
I'll be grateful for any feedback you might have. Erik
---
Erik Hemdal
Software Engineer
Comprehensive Power, Inc.
420 Northborough Road
Marlborough MA 01752
phone: (508) 460-0010
fax: (508) 460-0028
email: erik@comprehensivepower.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
Posted by Ted Dennison <de...@ssd.fsi.com>.
Arild Fines wrote:
> SCC is now part of the Visual Studio SDK, which allows open sourcing
> products developed with it. See
> http://blogs.msdn.com/dotnetinterop/archive/2006/01/27/517578.aspx for more
> information.
>
OK. I went and downloaded the new SDK (Visual Studio 2005 SDK - April
2006 V2 RTM) so I could look at the new license. This was on the off
chance that they did something nice, like making the new terms
explicitly supersede the old terms so that I'd be free again.
The download agreement that I had to accept to download it was titled
"Visual Studio Industry Partner Distribution Agreement". That's "VSIP",
the old name for the program. Its also dated July 2003. After reading
it, it sure looks identical to the old agreement. Section 2.b.vii has
the exact same wording as on the page you linked.
There's a separate EULA inside the SDK. Its is titled "MICROSOFT
SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS VISUAL STUDIO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT". It is
very different, and does appear to allow sharing of sources under some
very restricted circumstances. I believe it was crafted in an attempt to
allow source sharing, but not in concert with GPL sources. It has its
own "viral" component, that requires you to be at least as restrictive
with anyone you share with as Microsoft was to you.
For anyone trying to operate under this, its unclear to me if this is
compatible with the licenses on the subversion API, as well as the
libraries that it requires like Neon, Expat, OpenSSL, etc. Neon is LGPL,
so you are probably hosed right there.
But it gets worse: Even if this is OK, you still have to agree with that
old "agreement" before you downloaded it. That has different, and in
some cases inconsistent clauses, including one that says:
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
and contemporaneous agreements or communications. It shall not be
modified except by a written agreement dated subsequent to the date
of this Agreement and signed on behalf of You and Us by respective
duly authorized representatives.
The newer licensing agreement has no such clause (or attached date), so
I'm guessing that the earlier (more restrictive one) takes precidence.
It would take an "IP" lawyer (and perhaps a court ruling) to straighten
out for sure though.
Unless this is a recent situation, I'd say the blogger you linked is
full of (*insert icky substance of your choice here*).
--
T.E.D. Work - mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com
Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
Posted by Ted Dennison <de...@ssd.fsi.com>.
Arild Fines wrote:
>
>> From: Ted Dennison [mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:48 PM
>> To: users@subversion.tigris.org
>> Subject: Re: Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
>>
>> I ended up having to write our own Subversion SCC provider, which I'm
>> still working on in the rare moments I have time to spare. Sadly, I
>> can't share it, as Micro$oft made us sign an NDA before they'd let me
>> look at their (inadequate) SCC docs. Its a lot of work, so I'd say
>> PushOK's software is definitely worth the money if it works OK for you.
>>
>
> SCC is now part of the Visual Studio SDK, which allows open sourcing
> products developed with it. See
> http://blogs.msdn.com/dotnetinterop/archive/2006/01/27/517578.aspx for more
> information.
>
Sadly, that does not change the fact that we agreed to a nasty NDA with
them before they did this. Someone who has never agreed to the old NDA
could perhaps share their own Subversion SCC, but I cannot.
Next time I sell my soul, I hope I at least get a lollipop. :-(
--
T.E.D. Work - mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com
Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
Posted by Arild Fines <ar...@broadpark.no>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Dennison [mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:48 PM
> To: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
>
> I ended up having to write our own Subversion SCC provider, which I'm
> still working on in the rare moments I have time to spare. Sadly, I
> can't share it, as Micro$oft made us sign an NDA before they'd let me
> look at their (inadequate) SCC docs. Its a lot of work, so I'd say
> PushOK's software is definitely worth the money if it works OK for you.
SCC is now part of the Visual Studio SDK, which allows open sourcing
products developed with it. See
http://blogs.msdn.com/dotnetinterop/archive/2006/01/27/517578.aspx for more
information.
--
Arild
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Feedback/experiences on PushOK SVN
Posted by Ted Dennison <de...@ssd.fsi.com>.
Erik Hemdal wrote:
> PushOK SVN has been suggested to me as a way to use Subversion as an SCC
> provider for some of our IDE tools. But my source didn't have any
> specifics, only that it is supposed to work. Does anyone have experience
> with this SCC plug-in that they can share?
>
I looked at using it, but we decided against it because we wanted
sources for our integration tools. It looks really nice though. Why not
download it from their website and try it out for yourself?
The main problem any SCC provider has with Subversion is that the SCC
spec was designed around SourceSafe. Among other issues, this means that
everything is geared to a strict-locking style of development, which is
not really the Subversion Way.
If you are just interested in VisualStudio integration, another thing
you might be interested in trying is Ankhsvn. (
http://ankhsvn.tigris.org/ ). Sadly, we couldn't use that either, as its
.NET, and we are still using VS6.
I ended up having to write our own Subversion SCC provider, which I'm
still working on in the rare moments I have time to spare. Sadly, I
can't share it, as Micro$oft made us sign an NDA before they'd let me
look at their (inadequate) SCC docs. Its a lot of work, so I'd say
PushOK's software is definitely worth the money if it works OK for you.
--
T.E.D. Work - mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com
Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org